Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Spirit Airlines Emergency Return DFW

Wikiposts
Search
Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Spirit Airlines Emergency Return DFW

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 17th Oct 2013, 17:17
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,569
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
I take it that we still don't know for sure what happened to either the engine nor the aircraft from the standpoint of mechanical damage.

I assume the pilots just followed their standard procedures for a report of smoke in the cabin along with abnormal engine symptoms.

Understandable that the SLF in the back seeing the flash of flame out an engine along with the bang and then smoke in the cabin are going to be scared. I'm not sure that any experts have confirmed the degree of uncontained whether it be through the side of the engine or chewed up bits out the front or back airstream of the engine.
lomapaseo is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2013, 17:35
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 15,819
Received 201 Likes on 93 Posts
the degree of uncontained whether it be through the side of the engine or chewed up bits out the front or back airstream of the engine
Though hot end parts exiting via the tailpipe aren't classed as an "uncontained" failure.

SKYbrary - Uncontained Engine Failure
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2013, 17:44
  #23 (permalink)  
VFD
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: us
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It is unusual these days that somewhere someone has not released a picture of the damage to the engine and/or aircraft and pylon if any.

Understandable that the SLF in the back seeing the flash of flame out an engine along with the bang and then smoke in the cabin are going to be scared
According to the passenger interviewed on NBC is was a near death experience. The plane shook so hard when the engine "exploded" that the passenger had trouble for a few seconds pushing the correct letters so she could text on her phone.
VFD is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2013, 21:19
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
DaveReidUK:

Though hot end parts exiting via the tailpipe aren't classed as an "uncontained" failure.
Not everyone in the business will agree with this distinction. Parts blown out the tailpipe present a real hazard to the tailplane; particularly to hydraulic etc. systems inside the stab LE.
barit1 is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2013, 21:38
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It is unusual these days that somewhere someone has not released a picture of the damage to the engine and/or aircraft and pylon if any.
The US has just re-opened, so give it a few days...

The news today is that VivaAerobus will order 40 A320's with PW motors...

(Same person who set up Ryanair set up this airline)

Last edited by underfire; 17th Oct 2013 at 21:38.
underfire is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2013, 22:43
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 15,819
Received 201 Likes on 93 Posts
Not everyone in the business will agree with this distinction.
The NTSB does, though.

Statement today:

"The NTSB has an investigator on the scene at Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport inspecting and documenting the engine, an International Aero Engines (IAE) V2500, which has now been removed from the airplane.

As a result of the initial inspection, it was determined that the engine failure was contained, meaning it did not penetrate the engine casing."
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 18th Oct 2013, 01:15
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Contained engine failure should be handled fine with appropriate checklist. The passengers might have seen what pilots couldn't. They deal with what they know.
bubbers44 is offline  
Old 18th Oct 2013, 02:36
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA
Age: 74
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
oops

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duck
In a couple of shots it sure looks like you can see shredded top of wing. If as stated the video is off this flight then doesn't this qualify as "uncontained"?

Hey Duck, not wanting to sound condescending, but do an engine-number check on the A319 for me.
got it, hence deleted my post. news video of the story had clips intermingled of the Quantas Spirit, likely to show what an uncontained incident looks like. While I did not apply anything like adequate comprehension I suspect many viewers would have seen that story and thought they were seeing the incident aircraft. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
MrDuck is offline  
Old 18th Oct 2013, 06:20
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Age: 74
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
You Tube video

Come ON guys! They You Tube video was not this flight, it was the Qantas A380 incident. Take another look!
Minimbah is offline  
Old 18th Oct 2013, 07:02
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: In one of the two main circles
Age: 65
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Update from NTSB

NTSB Investigating Engine Failure Aboard Spirit Airlines Flight 165

Oct. 17, 2013
The National Transportation Safety Board is investigating Tuesday’s engine failure on a Spirit Airlines Airbus A319, which was flying from Dallas to Atlanta when the event occurred.
The NTSB has an investigator on the scene at Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport inspecting and documenting the engine, an International Aero Engines (IAE) V2500, which has now been removed from the airplane.
As a result of the initial inspection, it was determined that the engine failure was contained, meaning it did not penetrate the engine casing.
The engine will be shipped to a separate facility for a detailed examination and disassembly. IAE, the Federal Aviation Administration, and Spirit Airlines are parties to the investigation.
The NTSB has also secured the flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder from Spirit Flight 165. The recorders are being brought back to Washington, DC for readout and analysis.

Contact Information

Office of Public Affairs
490 L'Enfant Plaza, SW
Washington, DC 20594

Eric M. Weiss
(202) 314-6100
[email protected]
llagonne66 is offline  
Old 18th Oct 2013, 08:09
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Earth
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Those reporters don't even try anymore do they?

"Airbus A319"........... shows Qantas A380 in the video.
deadcut is offline  
Old 18th Oct 2013, 17:28
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
First we have an uncontained failure, and then we don't.

To any technician observing, I should think this determination could be made in less than a minute - I'd expect 5 - 10 seconds even - and that determination would remain unchallenged through the final report. The evidence will be so blatant, there will be no reason to doubt.

But now we have the NTSB waffling on the question. What is going on here???
barit1 is offline  
Old 18th Oct 2013, 17:49
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 15,819
Received 201 Likes on 93 Posts
But now we have the NTSB waffling on the question. What is going on here???
Leaving aside the unauthorised, unattributable, off-the-record statement made by whoever was minding the shop at the NTSB while the investigators were furloughed, the only reference to an uncontained failure was when they acknowledged that they had "received a report" of one.

That they had received such a report was true. The report, though, wasn't.

I would imagine that, as you surmise, very little time elapsed between the NTSB investigator actually seeing the engine for the first time, and his relaying back to HQ that it had been a contained failure.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 18th Oct 2013, 19:35
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It is a bit strange that there are still no images of the engine...
underfire is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2013, 00:10
  #35 (permalink)  
VFD
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: us
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It is a bit strange that there are still no images of the engine...
I thought that strange as well, so we are going to assume that the failure was somewhat spectacular but being contained there must of not been much to see.
Somewhere I read the engine is already off the airframe and a new one being installed.
VFD is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2013, 01:29
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
We had an Airbus 300 have an engine fire after takeoff at San Juan and the fire burned through the fire detector loop making the engine fire light go out so they landed with an engine on fire. A mechanic in back told the FA the engine was on fire but they landed with it running causing a lot of grief to the FO causing major problems with him. I know the captain who was on that flight. They dealt with what they saw on their panel, not looking out a passenger window. Let him rest in peace.
bubbers44 is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2013, 02:19
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,569
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
We had an Airbus 300 have an engine fire after takeoff at San Juan and the fire burned through the fire detector loop making the engine fire light go out so they landed with an engine on fire. A mechanic in back told the FA the engine was on fire but they landed with it running causing a lot of grief to the FO causing major problems with him. I know the captain who was on that flight. They dealt with what they saw on their panel, not looking out a passenger window. Let him rest in peace.
Had they looked out the window I doubt they would have seen very much as the fire was on the outer side.

lomapaseo is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2013, 06:16
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
That is why I said passenger window because the cockpit window would have not shown it. It was too far back to see.
bubbers44 is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2013, 06:25
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 15,819
Received 201 Likes on 93 Posts
Somewhere I read the engine is already off the airframe and a new one being installed.
The NTSB statement (see post #26) referred to the engine having been removed from the aircraft for inspection, as one would expect.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2013, 20:43
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Ohio
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
While I doubt that anyone who knows me would refer to me as a drama queen dressed in a man's clothes, I don't think that seeing flames coming from an engine of a plane that I was on would give me warm fuzzies, and I doubt that the crew was entirely sanguine either.
I do know that I'd not speak to the media on camera.
Been there, done that, ended up looking like a twit, although the brief interview didn't involve aviation.
You see, they edit the shoot as they see fit for the evening news, so they can easily make anyone look like a twit, except for those who've either had the experience or who've had the benefit of professional coaching.
Good outcome for all, though. Nobody injured and the aircraft not harmed. Good work by the crew.
fdcg27 is offline  


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.