It's so simple - get on your knee on walk-round and check! Then it can't happen. I always do this whatever the weather. We are paid to be the last line of defence. These guys clearly didn't do that.

If you mean the Tigerair A320, it was delivered in February 2013. Clearly it would have had the hold-open device installed when built.

I thought the whole point of the hold-open device was to obviate the need for wet knees by, er, holding the doors (slightly) open when unlatched such that the gap can be seen from ahead without the need to bend down ?

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/i...5leAU7wDq_Ab9e

In theory, yes, but events in the real world disprove that idea as a way of preventing these accidents.

Will Airbus wait until there's a hull loss with a couple of hundred deaths before they fix this problem?

That youtube video has had 23000 views already.
I wonder why? :E

Why has this become an issue now given the V2500 powered A320 series dates from approx 1988? What's the change or did we just have decades of good luck?

No, nothing has changed.

The first recorded losses of A320 cowl doors (both CFM and IAE variants) were over 20 years ago (1992, possibly earlier).

Edit: arithmetic fail :\

I am afraid not. The operational procedure suggested by Airbus, as laid down in FCOM, remain unchanged >> CHECK THE LATCHES.
If you want to go full depth in risk assesment and HF, the hold-open device has an inherent defficiency in its failure mode. If the hold-open fails (or indeed is not installed) the resulting position is a false closed.

regards, FD.

careful with the numbers...

Most aircraft/engine types have had the rare occurrence of an unlatch cowling departing the airplane. You can make the system fool resistant, but it is really, really hard to make it foolproof (see above quote). Problem is, the V2500 loosing engine cowls is not particularly rare.
It's clear there is something unique about the V2500 installation that is resulting in the relatively high rate of cowls departing the aircraft. It's also clear that the steps taken so far have not addressed the fundamental problem.
The FAA considers 'parts departing airplane' to be inherently unsafe (and I'm sure EASA has a similar policy). :ugh:
BTW, who provides the V2500 engine nacelle (or does Airbus make it in-house)?

UTC Aerospace Systems delivers its 5,000th nacelle system for a V2500® engine on an Airbus A321 - Oct 31, 2013

Originally developed by Rohr, which became Goodrich Aerostructures before being acquired by UTC in 2012.

The manufacturer of the nacelle is not necessarily the certificate holder under part 25. Since it only fits and works on an Airbus I would look to Airbus as the responsible party for its operation in-service.

UTC would be happy to weld it shut :).

Airbus is most certainly responsible for the Part 25 certification - with the notable exception of the actual engines (that are certified separately) the airframer is responsible for certification. But apparently Rohr/Goodrich was responsible for the design of the cowl and the associated latching system and presumably would be responsible for any sort of redesign to avoid future cowl separations (although Airbus would likely be 'involved').
However it's an Airbus aircraft, they own the TCDS, and ultimately Airbus has the responsibility.

Depends what you mean by "particularly".

Yes, fan cowls fall off other aircraft types, but the fact that there have been around 40 such events on the A320 family (not just IAE-engined variants) is partly because there are so many of them in service and partly because the design of the door makes it possible to miss the fact that they aren't latched.

Compared that with the 737, for example, where the rate of cowl loss events is (I think) around 25% of that for the Airbus. Here, although the nacelle also comes from Rohr/Goodrich/UTC, the latches are different and, because of the way the doors hang, an unlatched door is much easier to detect.

Incidentally, there's an interesting statistic in the AAIB report on the Heathrow incident, namely that IAE-powered Airbuses are more likely to lose the doors from the left engine, whereas for CFM-powered variants it's the right engine. In both cases, the latches are on the inboard side of the relevant engine.

Is it just me, or was there an unusual level of misunderstanding in that ATC recording? On many occasions the flight crew had trouble communicating the nature of the problem and their needs.

Agree with the above, however I wouldn't say it's unusual, if you've flown across Asia you will get use to the language barrier. Sounds like a local Captain, a lot of Tiger Captains were expat (AU,UK etc..) no idea if they have cleared them out aka SIA.

But Yes, not fantastic communication between both parties.

Come now, how was he supposed to know that the engine bowling wasn't the problem??? :confused:

http://s3.amazonaws.com/org.barkah.m...00+bowling.jpg

For f...s sake !!!!!!!!


How difficult is it to crouch down and check these latches?

You don't need to get a wet knee, only a wet hand:-

Stand at the side of the engine just aft of the intake, facing to the rear of the aircraft. Crouch down like a cricket wicket keeper. Place one hand on the join between the front of the cowling and the engine anti-ice ring housing, (which will give you a tactile indication as to whether the cowling is correctly flush). Place your other hand on the ground and lean downwards until your head is low enough to look underneath at the latches. You should not be able to see anything hanging lower than the cowling line, (apart from the drain mast). If you do, call the engineers.

At the very worst, you might get a wet hand, but how bad is that compared to the idiocy of taking off with the cowlings unlatched ????????????????

Come on people, we are pilots, and we should properly check our aircraft before flying them. It is no good trying to blame engineers etc, the pilots accept the aircraft to fly, the pilots should perform a proper walk around. No excuses. End of.

Alternatively, a selfie stick might do the trick.

Penitpete
 

Quite right.

However, the flt crew are only one layer of inspection. The engineer who opened it is responsible for ensuring it is closed again, either by them selves or make a tech log entry for another engineer to close it. It is also normal for the pushback crew to c/o a panel insp and confirm to the flt crew that all are closed and latched. The whole idea of this is to try and stop the old Swiss cheese problem.
I know the V2500 cowl and latches are an inferior design compared to the CFM cowling, but every one knows it is, so should take extra care when checking them.
At the end of the day all things taken into account it comes down to self preservation, it saves an awfull lot of paperwork and greif.