Thompson Engine Failure in ALC 23/10
 

We departed just before TOM022M tonight out of Alicante and on handover after T/O heard the PAN PAN call from the Thompson 757 due Engine Failure. They held for a while before going proceeding to the ALT for the ILS Y.
Assume everyone one ok, things appeared under control - any ideas of what happened?

It was G-BYAH. 230 pax plus 8 crew. Eng #2 on fire and according to a ground engy "destroyed as never seen before". Looks like some engine part was ingested. Small report and low quality engine pics by a ground agent here:

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpo...postcount=1961

Regards

good flying !
 

Looks like another professional job by the crew, well done guys!

As to the engine the photos don't show enough detail to be sure if what happend but it seems to show damage in the jetpipe.

Congrats to the crew
 

Well done to the crew.
Looking at the pictures what you can make out it looks like a lot of engine damage.

"Los motores don't like it up 'em Captain Mainwaring!" :)

The Pictures look interesting indeed.

One question though - and I know the usual debate -

Engine on Fire - certain vibration? why only a Pan call not Mayday? You could atleast downgrade it if wanted later on...?

Not raining on anyones parade - they got back safe - good job, just wondering though.

Pan? In Spain?

Isn't a recognised call in Spain, unless this years' refresher course is wrong.

Can anyone give further enlightenment?

Photos show No1 engine.

GGPMW

I guess it depends when they called ATC. Assuming Aviate, Navigate then Communicate perhaps there was no vibration or fire warning when they made the call. Only a thought.

Not sure about the use of Pan Pan in spain. It's possible that the tower saw the fire so they appreciated the urgency of the situation.

SW

They called on the departure freq passing 2200'. with the Pan call. Correct, they may have had transmissions with the tower before handover, we didnt hear that part, since we departed just before them.

Avt-Ngt-Comm, sure, but I'd still want to be THE most important thing flying in that area at that time. Would be interesting to see at what stage the incident actually happened...

Good job we taxied first 'capin

Blue Up

After landing the chaps asked the tower that they would like the fire services to inspect the tyres, brakes and engine whilst they held clear of the runway. At this point the fire engines were still in the fire station and probably took 5 min to get to the aircraft. When they did arrive the Capt asked if there was a frequency he could use to talk to the fire services. There was a frequency but tower advised the crew to talk through him as the fire services could only speak Spanish. Later the tower apologised for not having the fire services out earlier as they had not declared an emergency although they had put out a pan call earlier.
As you said Blue Up, a Pan call would only seem to work in the Uk. If you want to be sure of the fire services put out a Mayday.

Pan Pan is the correct urgency-call in all EASA countries.
However, just like "Securité- Securité" its use is getting rare in many FIR's.


Good job gentlemen.

Despegue. Do you have a reference for Pan-pan being used everywhere in EASA? Also, I've never heard of "securite' " as a call. Can you tell me more?

I don't think there was any mention in the CAP413 published by the UK CAA, but I may be wrong. Any help would be useful since I am giving some training on a related subject this week.

Thanks

Securite call used to be a yachtie vhf call in french waters if you were a hazard to navigation e.g adrift. I also did not know it had migrated to aviation, untill I heard it on 121.5 about 2 weeks ago whilst overflying france.:confused:

When I did my ATC course way back in 197longtimeago, I was taught that the "securite" call could be made by anyone wishing to do a general broadcast for something afffecting the safety of flight, such as CAT etc etc.

Doc C

I can't access the 'skyscraper link' - It seems hidden to me!!:(

When London Centre transmit messages such as temporary airspace retrictions etc on 121.5 we always prefix it with securite x 3

DD

"Securite, Securite" is used as the prefix to broadcasts by both london and Scottish centres on Guard when notifying aircrew of a TDA etc.

As for "Pan-Pan" I've heard it used a couple of times round Europe recently.

Back to the thread.........looks like a job well done by the crew once again.

I can't access the pictures, can anybody help?

I can't help wondering whether the engine damage could have been caused by FOD which has been a feature of the ramp at Alicante for at least 25 years. I, and many others, have brought bagfulls home over the years and sent them off to our Flight Safety department. Not a great deal was ever achieved. The areas around the hold doors always seemed to have broken bits from suitcases, some solid and robust like padlocks. We shall just have to wait and see what is found when they strip down what is left of the engine.

Oh and is Thomson without the P :}

It was the No.1 engine and l was told it was a turn back due to a surge (Damage to LP).
If it is anything like the one we had, our one surged resulting in blades bending forward which gives results like you had taken in FOD.
In this case the FOD is the rotating blades hitting each other and results in parts of the blades going deeper into the engine.:{

The FOD at AGP, BCN and ALC is appalling, and I suspect only marginally better at MJV because they handle fewer flights.

TOM5022 Alicante Engine and Flight Disaster
 

Having been one of the passengers sitting on the TOM 5022 flight from Alicante hoping to land alive in Cardiff, and sitting in row 41 in the window seat on the side of the unfortunate incident, I can tell you that there was a very strong smell of aviation fuel before we began to taxi on the runway, which I failed to report to the crew and realise I would not have been taken any notice of anyway. We had just cleared the mainland and were banking to turn up Spain, I was looking out of the window when the engine exploded, there was no preliminary warning apart from the smell of aviation fuel, there was a very loud bang, with sparks, vibrations and huge flames which reached back to row 41 and aparently also could be seen out of the windows on the other side of the plane. I have to say as someone who totally enjoys the thrill of flying (DID) I thought we were going to die. Seeing the flight attendants running at top speed from the back to the front of the plane did not combat my fears.

We were told to give them instructions as to what we had seen and reopen the shutter which we had closed as we could not face what was happening and tell them what we could see so they could report to the pilot. We circled Alicante for an hour jettisoning fuel flying on only one engine, all of which when you just want to feel land beneath your feet and be as far away from a potential ball of flaming aviation fuel was far too long. On landing we were not allowed anywhere near the airport until the fire crews had checked the plane was safe and far from meeting us on landing it took ten minutes for them to get to us. We then taxied to the airport where we were told we would be kept together in a lounge for us all to recouperate and chill out until we were given further instructions. The flight took off originally at 7.20 Spanish time and we eventually were released into the departure lounge to wander aimlessly shocked and terriefied amid ordinary passengers who had no idea what had just happened, with no where for smokers to have the much needed intake of nicotine and no offer of a cup of tea from Thompson and no Thomson staff in site for at least fifteen minutes. They had no real instruction on how to deal with us and on passengers asking them for instructions we were all told to just find somewhere to sit and chill out!!

At 10.30 on the notice board normally used for telling passengers when to board a notice appeared telling us that flight TOM5022 was to be served dinner, it did not say where, but the queue of 230 passengers so glad to be alive they just followed instruction without question told us where!

The Captain spoke to a few people at the tables whilst he queued for his plate of complimentary chips and chicken burger shapes but no formal announcement was ever made.

Again at 2.30 a notice appeared and staff came and found passengers to tell them tea and pastries were being served. Eventually at 3.30 we board another Thomson plane to take us all back to Cardiff, I have to say I vomitted three times before finally being able to get back onto a plane and the finger prints of my grip are probably still in row 40 middle seat as I have never been so afraid in my life.

I was told we should all be glad to be alive and I know that I am, but the incident was absolutely terrifying and I for one do not appreciate being told that I should be grateful to be alive, as far as I am concerned my life should not have been put at risk in the first place!!! Who is responsible for saying the plane was safe to fly? Who has made the cock up that left an engine fit to explode less than five minutes after take off? Who has the final say that all the checks have been done and the plane is safe to fly 230 passengers? Who is responsible for this incident that has left me with nightmares and flashbacks of the incident in my mind in disbelief that this has happened to me. Shocked that I could have died mid air in an explosion of aviation fuel, traumatised about flying when I have to return to Alicante on a Thompson flight only one week after the incident. WHO?

What a stupid thing to say. Do you really think the guys up front would have taken the plane if they thought there was anything wrong with it. By the look of it there was an engine surge 5 mins after takeoff, nobody could have seen that coming. It sounds to me like you should be greatfull to the crew who did a very proffessional job of getting you back down to earth safely.

Looking for compensation perhaps :hmm:

Hedgedweller:
have you considered a career in the media? A top-class bit of drama, the red-tops would love it.

Hedgedweller,

I think you're still in shock. You might need to see a Doctor, but I would suggest learning about what happened to you.

Look and listen to this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KhZwsYtNDE

That's how Aviation professionals manage an Emergency.
I'm sure your emergency was handled just as well up front.
You will see when the incident is investigated and the report is released.

Everyone in the industry whether up front or behind the scenes is committed to safety and no other industry takes safety as seriously as the Aviation business. Good design, over-design and contingency enabled you to land safely. And you will do the next time as well, I promise.

Relax, and consider that when you next drive in your car you will be putting yourself at > 10000 times more risk of dying.

I do agree about the smoking ban though - that's a bit ridiculous after you've had an Engine failure like that. :)

Hedweller - I am not having a go, But if you were so concerned about the smell of 'fuel' why didn't you say something then??

I understand that the cabin Crew could have probably not taken it seriously, You should have gone to the No1 and spoke to her/him?

You should have 'blocked out' the 'false' chit chat that is always onboard before you take-off and made your point.

It sounds like no one else seemed all that bothered about the smell?:=

G BYAH the Aircraft involved has being flying since 1992, And this incident was a very rare one indeed.

I understand your anxiety, but 2 exp pilots sitting up front will not take risks, Are not paid to take risks with an Airliner costing millions, And dare I say it passengers lives that are not replaceable.

An Aircraft is just like a car - Anything can go wrong, The only thing is it can go very wrong in an Aircraft.:ugh:

I am not predicting, But the incident could have being caused by (FOD) foreign Object damage from the airfield or another aircraft, This is unfortunately sometimes the cause of engine Failure After Take Off.

Because it happened on take-off you cannot land straight away, And this makes the experience more terrifying, But Aircraft are designed and built to fly on one engine, Which it has done on many occasions.

I just hope that your experience does not have any long term repercussions in your travels.

Best Regards.:ok:

hedgedweller

Clearly the incident has upset you and that is highly regrettable. Probably, the most effective way of dealing with it is to permit time to pass and let things work themselves out in your mind.

There are a number of emotional statements that you have made in your post (perhaps not surprisingly) that you may wish to reconsider in the future - for example, the post title includes the phrase "Flight Disaster" which, in purely factual terms, it wasn't. It is possible that the incident may repeat may not have been as serious (in terms of immediate danger to yourself) as it looked from the cabin or as you perceived it from your seat.

A large part of your post concerns events on the ground in the terminal: Clearly, in your view, things should havee been handled either better, or at least differently. I'm sure that you're correct - in retrospect, nearly everything could have been handled so and I'm sure that the airline's own investigation into the incident would address such concerns.

One final point: Notwithstanding your concerns about the fitness of the aircraft to despatch, one thing that is missing from your post is some form of recognition for the flight crew who managed successfully to land you safely: Maybe this would be a positive view to draw from the incident?

Anything that is mechanical can fail - even the hard disk on your computer!

That is why many things on board an aircraft are duplicated or even triplicated and why crews regularly practice emergencies in the simulator.

If you expect 100% reliability then I suggest you do not board an aircraft intending to fly.

Well done to the crew - job well done!

Totally agree TightSlot - and all the other comments above....

Machines fail (rarely - but they do) its a tiny risk that us human beings take every time we leave the ground. We assess the risk and accept it.

As a rotor pilot we often rib plank pilots for autopilot careers.

However when I hear of incidents such as this, who cares about the catering, or the lack of facilities at Alicante (of which I can agree with), the pilots and crew brought you home and they should be congratulated by you rather than mocked.

As a pax you will find few shoulders to cry on in a professional pilots forum? Why post here? Looking for a good place to put your article? How about one of the housewife rag mags?

Boring - lets get away from pax emotions and get back to being a pilots forum, for pilots

It is obvious that your experience was not pleasant and I don't wish to downplay what happened to you, but perhaps if you take a little quiet time to reflect, you might take a more rational and considered view.
You seem very, very quick to attribute blame to somebody, whether that be flightcrew, cabin crew, ground staff or those who look after the mechanical well being of the aircraft. I totally understand that your initial reaction would be one of alarm, indeed panic and that has left you angry and seeking some form or retribution/compensation against/from an individual or company.
Now that you are 'safely' back at home, maybe you should consider re writing your post, editing out the emotive and accusatory content.
Perhaps you might like to consider the following prior to typing.
1. The aircraft is more than capable of flying on a single engine (as was demonstrated to you)
2 Had there been a genuine, imminent reason for the crew to make an immediate return, they would have done so. I would imagine that they have every intention of making it home too.
3. The prime concern of the entire crew is your safety, and this will over ride your comfort in some situations.
4. I had the misfortune to visit Alicante earlier this year. In this respect I do understand your emotional response, for I too would be shocked and traumatised if I ever had to venture back there again. I am still having nightmares and flashbacks about the place. Blackpool in the sun.

On boarding, about the third of the 757's weight can be fuel, and it can smell. On long-haul flights (as a passenger, mind you -- so most of you can stop reading now if you like), I often notice a strong kerosene smell when I get on board, especially if they're fueling at the time. You're effectively standing at a petrol station with something on the order of 500 cars filling their tank.

Surges/Compressor stalls can be spectacular (my experience with them pales compared to yours. I only saw flames out of the side with the offending engine) and terrifying, but it's not an entirely uncommon experience. They and their flames have nothing to do with fuel leaks, and everything to do with airflow and the bits that spin round very fast (which is why engines are placed in thick nacelles).

The landing would have been heavy and without reverse thrust, so the brakes would have been hot. The fire department would have been standing by, but their first priority would be to check for and extinguish any possible brake fires.

Unfortunately, where the system really falls apart is how they deal with passengers after such an incident, or for that matter any incident. At every level, services have been refined to a degree where ground staff, working for the airline or for the airport, simply cannot handle satisfactorily the contingency of something as banal as the cancellation of a full narrow-body, let alone your case. Consider the number of people available at an "away" destination, what their job description, and what their training is, and frankly, there's a reason why nothing is happening fast, and nobody is telling you anything: they don't know. Logistics isn't instant; a total delay of less than 8 hours is pretty good, and they even fed you. I've seen a trainload of Eurostar passengers suffer for longer, with nothing.

We're all lucky to be alive, but an engine failure like that isn't in the realm of "near-death" experiences. It's frightening.

I know it was a shock and not very pleasant, but the smell of fuel would have no bearing on the incident.
You will often get a smell of fuel in the cabin, l have smelt it myself, normally air brought into the cabin from an engine exhaust that is running near by.
The aircraft was not flying around for an hour while it jettisoned fuel, it can't, it is only burning fuel by the other engine.
Crew may have been getting the weight down, but more likely ensuring they have everything organised for their one engine landing.
You would not wish them to rush things and then ba**s up the landing and turn an incident into a accident would you?

Hedgedweller
 

Is this what they really said to you?

If so it sounds as though ground staff did a little dramatisation of their own. As has been posted already, twin jet airliners are designed to fly on one engine in an emergency, and handled as this one, and the incident in the video, clearly were handled, engine failures should not, in themselves be aircraft killers. Additionally, from their first flight in a multi engine aircraft, and in fact in the classroom beforehand, commercial pilots are aquainted with engine failure. Such is the emphasis on powerplant failure training, students often joke about paying large sums hiring twins for lessons then flying them single engine anyway. This is just the beginning. During type training more engine failure follows (in the sim this time - but it is realistic), and it continues from there, during recurrent training.

If you are unlucky, very unlucky as a pilot, you may have to deal with engine failure for real in a twin jet, as the pilots of your aircraft did. The drills thereafter are well practiced, which you cannot hear on the video, merely the radio traffic.

That is not to say pilots are blasé about engine failure, nor can I imagine one would omit something on the ground, even if late, which would allow detection of an impending failure.

I'm not sure I agree with many of those who have condemned your post, much of what you have been told here is information not fed to passengers during a pre flight safety brief - nobody tells you not to worry unnecessarily specifically if the engine goes bang - you must have been, and clearly were, very frightened. This, in my opinion, mitigates what others are calling your melodrama - in your own mind clearly this incident was extremely dramatic.

I hope that your respect for pilots is not diminished by the attacks against your post, and that the explanations people have given you reassures you about flying as a passenger in future. Somebody above promised you that you will land again safely, and they were right.

Well Done Guys:ok:

Courageous of Carmarthen
 

Well really !

I think hedgedweller is absolutely right to be appalled, if I were him I'd make the strongest compensation claim possible against both the cabin and flight deck crew at once.

Just a suggestion,but perhaps those remarkably friendly, and genuinely altruistic legal service providers that advertise occasionally on quality AM radio stations, like the informative and educational 'Talk Sport' for instance; or pop up from time to time on such highly amusing cable stations as UK Gold, might be able to extend a hand to man let down so badly in his hour of need.

I'm no lawyer, but I think we all want to know exactly what Biggles and Algy were up to in the front all the time that this man was out on the wing, with only a window blind in his hand, trying to extinguish fifteen tonnes of JET A1. I don't know, but flying round in circles idly practising one of their 'oooooh look at me keeping the ball-in-the-middle' games I suspect.

Furthermore I understand that tea and coffee would have been served in the front office by the five minutes airborne point, and I'm sure that was not going to interrupted by any young fellah-me-lad with all sorts of stories of fireworks and heroics . It's on these seemingly irrelevant details that the lives of almost two hundred and fifty people hang by a thread.

I for one am also outraged at the cavalier and wanton disregard for punctuality displayed by the Thomson crew. Surely if the aircraft was servicable enough to land back in ALC then why on earth couldn't it have continued and made a landing at CWL ! These people, seemingly caught up in a situation not of their own making were delayed HOURS by the trivial matter of a crew not wanting to fly a 1100nm single engine transit.

Again I'm no lawyer, but I venture that the cabin crew had their eye more on a impromptu nightstop and the 'Los Inferno' nightclub on the Alicante strip than on the punctuality of the service, and of course the inferno raging in row 41.

Many many questions to be answered, a shabby piece of flying by all concerned I do hope you are ashamed with yourselves.

Remember, ' if there's first aid, then there's legal aid !'

Cheers,

MOT





(Stunning job guys, well done to all.)

Pretty much all aircraft stink of jet fuel when you taxy downwind to the holding point. You take off into wind and have to taxy downwind to the downwind end of the runway. With 20 knots op the chuff, there will be exhaust fumes blown back into the aircon intakes (belly of the 757)

Jettisoning fuel? AH was a 757 when I last looked (Y'know, on the night before it went to ALC, when I was driving it back from LPA) and hasn't got a jettison facility. ZFW of about 79 tons plus maybe 12 tons of juice? Might've been below max landing weight before finishing the drills.

I had an engine surge some years ago in sister-ship AN (IIRC?) and by the time this non-event reached the front page of the Daily Telegraph it had become "JET FIRE SURVIVORS GIVEN VALIUM JABS":ok:

Reminds me of coming back home as passenger from the Far East on a Boeing 747 in about 1975. We stopped at Rome before the final leg to Heathrow and as we rotated for take off there was a bang and we continued to climb out normally. A few mins after take off the Captain (Laurie Taylor of BALPA fame) came on the PA to say they had shut down number 3 and we would be cruising at 26,000 ft instead of 35,000 ft and be ten mins late into LHR due reduced cruise speed.

As a young Second Officer I thought this was very exciting and couldnt wait to witness a real engine out landing at LHR which all went according to plan, needless to say. I had been sitting on the left hand side of the cabin but the pax on the right hand side had witnessed a large sheet of flame come out the back of the No 3 engine which had surged (a very common fault on the early Jumbo engines) so were somewhat nonplussed but eventually put at ease by our flight engineer who went across to explain to them what was going on!

Years ago engine failures and technical problems were far more common and experienced passengers on the early 747s (not to mention Stratocruisers and Constellations, for example) were more used to this happening. Nowadays an engine is so rare (touchwood) that passengers find it "unusual"!

If this event had happened today I wonder how much flak the crew would have got on Pprune for actually daring to continue all that way to LHR on THREE engines!!

As they say the ideal a/c is when the engineer says "We have lost number 4", the captains asks "Which side?".