Tiger A320 - another "lost" cowling?
Seen a Tigerair A320 with rescue services arround parking at a remotebay in WSSS. Looks like the cowling is missing on one of the engines. Some infos on that?
TOS |
From the company Facebook page.
Tigerair aircraft TR2638 which departed Changi Airport for Chennai today at 2046hrs (local time), has encountered a technical problem shortly after take off. The plane landed safely back at Changi Airport at 2320hrs (local time). All pax will be scheduled to depart for Chennai on the next available flight. Safety is of utmost importance to Tigerair and we will be holding investigations on this issue. |
|
Predictably, the aircraft in question is another IAE-powered example.
|
Certainly not due to aircraft age, brand new Sharklets equipped this one.
|
Some of Tiger's sharklets are retrofitted.
|
Full ATC recording, TGW2638, lost cowling & unsafe gear warning
|
Any VIP onboard? So what exactly does a VIP onboard mean? What would ATC do if they had one... |
It is absolutely astounding that this keeps happening to V2500 powered A320. I believe that there is a mod available to a put spring loaded plunger assembly on the back face of the Inlet Cowl such that it holds the cowlings a couple of centimeters open when not latched. I wonder why that is not mandatory?
|
Wow, started laughing at that. Also the spelling lesson was fun. So what exactly does a VIP onboard mean? What would ATC do if they had one... I think if they had asked me that, I might have flippantly replied "yes - 183". It happens about 5:00 for anybody interested. |
Every car I've driven in the last 40 years has a safety catch which stops the bonnet flying open if it's not been shut properly. That the IAE bus doesn't have a similar feature is unacceptable. Just think of the millions in litigation if lives are lost as a consequence.
|
Thinking of a simple warning to ECAM, inhibited in phases 4-10, ENG 1(2): COWL UNLKD, what's wrong with that? Somebody has to pay for the development of the modification but one day:
a) a regulatory body will mandate it; or b) the marketing team from IAE will budget it; or c) a large enough customer will convince AIB to build it. FD. |
It's already mandated by EASA, airbus maintenance manuals now say whenever you open an engine cowl, a log entry must be made, quite clearly this has not been followed!
|
Originally Posted by TomU
(Post 9193414)
It is absolutely astounding that this keeps happening to V2500 powered A320. I believe that there is a mod available to a put spring loaded plunger assembly on the back face of the Inlet Cowl such that it holds the cowlings a couple of centimeters open when not latched. I wonder why that is not mandatory?
|
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK
(Post 9194111)
The hold-open device mod is indeed mandatory, has been for several years.
|
Or, and I am merely speculating here, the cowling locking devices are inadequate, and are failing in flight?
In fact, for all the armchair engineers (me included) how do these devices operate? |
Whenever left open they do not hold the panels in place as per design, that's how they work. No failures in the public domain AFAIK.
The most interesting sequences are 00:10 - 00:50 and 07:50 until the end. What do you think is the production date of the original video? regards,FD. |
Late '80's at a guess.
2 things jump out: 1. The cowling when unsupported and not secured does appear to be closed. 2. The lower cowling catches, in requiring the hooks to be manually engaged seems like a gotcha, if not correctly engaged on a cold wet night, lying on your back at the end of a shift with a take-off time to meet. I guess the hold open device was not at that incorporated on the aircraft. |
It has happened before....poor design leads to inevitable results (cowl separation, in this case) over time. What is unfathamable, is that it has taken this long to ID and fix it! Sam
|
One thing I am not seeing on this thread is what training pilots are receiving to detect an unlocked IAE engine cowling.
Of course, I am old school, but if an item on the type of aircraft I was flying was a problem, I knew the gotchas in detail and how to protect myself. Wouldn't it be appropriate to train each pilot flying with the IAE engines to properly close the cowl by themselves, just one time, so that they can see the issues up close and personal. |
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.
|
Originally Posted by Kitbag
(Post 9194385)
I guess the hold open device was not at that incorporated on the aircraft.
|
Originally Posted by fatboy slim
(Post 9194617)
It's so simple - get on your knee on walk-round and check! Then it can't happen.
https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/i...5leAU7wDq_Ab9e |
It's so simple - get on your knee on walk-round and check! Then it can't happen. 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?
|
What's the change or did we just have decades of good luck? The first recorded losses of A320 cowl doors (both CFM and IAE variants) were over 20 years ago (1992, possibly earlier). Edit: arithmetic fail :\ |
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK
(Post 9194631)
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 ?
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. over 30 years ago (1992, possibly earlier). |
There is no such thing as a foolproof system, because fools are too ingenious. Wemher Von Braun 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)? |
Originally Posted by tdracer
(Post 9194772)
BTW, who provides the V2500 engine nacelle (or does Airbus make it in-house)?
Originally developed by Rohr, which became Goodrich Aerostructures before being acquired by UTC in 2012. |
BTW, who provides the V2500 engine nacelle (or does Airbus make it in-house)? UTC would be happy to weld it shut :). |
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. 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. |
Originally Posted by imperial shifter
(Post 9194948)
Has anybody got any evidence that this is particularly an A320 / V2500 issue?
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. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 03:03. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.