|
GoAir A320 engine fire
When will Indian media stop reporting :mad:
GoAir plane flying over Najafgarh caught fire, forced to make emergency landing | The Financial Express Alarmist idiots don't know the difference between aircraft catching fire and engine fire. Any information on the incident? |
|
Way better than "Mystery as plane ‘bursts into flames’ just before take-off at JFK Airport" right?
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/283121...-for-take-off/ |
@India Charlie
I always thought an engine (when installed) was part of the aircraft. Oh if we were all experts in each others field |
India Charlie you think engine fire shouldn't cause alarm? So you wouldn't be using May Day I suppose.
|
Er, pardon me, but the second article linked above says "they spotted fire and smoke coming out of the tail of GoAir G8-557".
How does this fit an engine fire? |
From Incident: GoAir A320 at Delhi on Feb 8th 2017, engine shut down in flight
On the previous day while flying from Mumbai to Delhi the crew had received a low oil pressure indication enroute about one hour into the flight, some time later a magnetic chip detector warning came up. Following safe landing the licensed aircraft maintenance engineers (LAME) should have checked the engine due to the magnetic chip detector indication, however, returned the aircraft to service under minimum equipment list requirements permitting it to continue for 10 hours. The aircraft subsequently flew to Leh, could not land there and returned to Delhi, then flew to Guwahati and back. The LAMEs checking the aircraft before departure to Banglaore did not realize that the aircraft had already done 9 hours and would be beyond the 10 hours under MEL upon arrival into Bangalore. The DGCA suspended the license of one of the LAMEs involved pending investigation. The airline reported they strictly complied with the maintenance regulations by the manufacturer, which permitted up to 10 hours under MEL following a magnetic chip detector indication until the cause of the indication was to be determined. |
Originally Posted by mivens
(Post 9672041)
Also, there seems to be some gaps in this story that would be handy to know. 1) There is no mention (or confirmation) of whether the chip detectors were ever cleaned/ re-set. Unless I am mistaken, failure to do so will bring up continuous or repeated alarms. 2) Is it correct that the engine manufacturer approves operation of the engine following a LOP alarm AND chip detector alarm? Seems a bit cavalier. I can imagine approval of operation under MEL following a chip alarm provided it has been cleaned / re-set and the alarm does not re-occur but those details are not confirmed by any of the preceding posts. 3) In fact, it seems from the information above that the operator may just be using the MEL provision as a means to defer appropriate troubleshooting / repair. To be fair, it's all a bit hazy, and maybe I'm inferring too much - or, maybe not. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 00:29. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.