Jet engine explodes on runway, Airbus A330
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've been involved in ground testing of medium-to-large turbine engines for a few decades and have experienced many compressor stalls (or surges, the terms are essentially interchangeable). And as often as I've heard/felt them, I have no problem with a untrained person calling it an "explosion" - because that is what it seems like. Combusting fuel/air mix at 20x atmospheric pressure deciding to exit through the front end of the engine - it's a LOUD bang! 
I'm not sure what the modern protocol is re sweeping the runway for debris after an RTO. If there's no evidence of missing engine hardware, the sweep may not be necessary.
I know, I know, it's more akin to a firearm discharging, which isn't really an explosion, but rather very rapid combustion.
I'm not sure what the modern protocol is re sweeping the runway for debris after an RTO. If there's no evidence of missing engine hardware, the sweep may not be necessary.
I know, I know, it's more akin to a firearm discharging, which isn't really an explosion, but rather very rapid combustion.
I know, I know, it's more akin to a firearm discharging, which isn't really an explosion, but rather very rapid combustion
I just wish these news guys would start using these type scientific terms
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Proper term
Deflagration : Is the proper term - a very rapid burning without a supersonic shock wave through the combustion material.
(Edit: Detonation is where there's a supersonic shock wave.)
Perhaps an engine surge could possibly be classed as an explosion of sorts under some circumstances ?
(Edit: Detonation is where there's a supersonic shock wave.)
Perhaps an engine surge could possibly be classed as an explosion of sorts under some circumstances ?
Last edited by Guest 112233; 25th Jun 2013 at 15:21.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Kent
Age: 65
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You would be surprised what you can do with a bit of gaffer tape and a decent sized hammer.
Last edited by overthewing; 25th Jun 2013 at 17:45.
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I saw this on news.com.au before checking the forums. I read the entire article first, then watched the video.
After reading the sensationalist article- I was not surprised to see the video was completely undramatic.
After reading the sensationalist article- I was not surprised to see the video was completely undramatic.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A330 engine failure, MAN
The original thread on this has presumably been (rightly) deleted because of some of the idiotic postings it attracted. Which is a pity since it demonstrated a text-book reject and the very best in professional airmanship from all concerned..followed by the very worst from pprune posters. Can we perhaps try again without the silliness?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The Burrow, N53:48:02 W1:48:57, The Tin Tent - EGBS, EGBO
Posts: 2,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PAXboy, this Nice Reject Take-Off at Manchester is the original title of the original thread (which ShotOne seems to think has been deleted). 
That whole thread is still here but has had the second one merged with it.
That whole thread is still here but has had the second one merged with it.
Last edited by DX Wombat; 27th Jun 2013 at 09:57.
Why not? Both engines were still running. If it was a surge, which seems likely, then the engine can continue to run especially if thrust is reduced to idle. Which is necessary before reversers are deployed.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: either CET or GMT
Posts: 1,174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Understand.
Won't the new increase in power when reversers are engaged further damage an engine in case something broke inside it?
Is that choice made because the possibility of an uncontained engine failure is much more remote, while the sooner you stop the airplane the better so both reversers are used even though that might render the engine unusable?
Or is it (also) because the procedure is simpler and less error-prone (TAM 3054)?
Won't the new increase in power when reversers are engaged further damage an engine in case something broke inside it?
Is that choice made because the possibility of an uncontained engine failure is much more remote, while the sooner you stop the airplane the better so both reversers are used even though that might render the engine unusable?
Or is it (also) because the procedure is simpler and less error-prone (TAM 3054)?
A surge happens so quickly and normal flow may be re-established before flt crew have time to look at the EGT to see which engine it was.
I appreciate that, in the case of a twin then the nose will yaw towards the surging engine. In the case of a 4 eng then you may not know which of two went.
It's better to pull reverse on the lot and worry about the problem when the aircraft has stopped.
I'd a surge in a B747 and a taxiing crew identified the engine for us - but they were wrong. It all happens too fast to start identifying which engine has spat its dummy.
I appreciate that, in the case of a twin then the nose will yaw towards the surging engine. In the case of a 4 eng then you may not know which of two went.
It's better to pull reverse on the lot and worry about the problem when the aircraft has stopped.
I'd a surge in a B747 and a taxiing crew identified the engine for us - but they were wrong. It all happens too fast to start identifying which engine has spat its dummy.
If the pilot senses a thrust loss via directional change involving rudder correction then the surge is not immediately recoverable by itself.
As for both reversers being activated I see no problem at all in that. After all the pilot is definitely on his game with the rudder pedals as evidenced by his control at high speed.
I might have missed this somewhere but any idea of the speed condition when the surge (sic) occurred?
As for both reversers being activated I see no problem at all in that. After all the pilot is definitely on his game with the rudder pedals as evidenced by his control at high speed.
I might have missed this somewhere but any idea of the speed condition when the surge (sic) occurred?
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Siliconia
Age: 63
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The selection of reverse (especially if only to reverse idle) is desirable for symmetry of blocker door drag.
The manoevres carried out in this case are nice and quick after the surge, so IMHO the engines don't stabilise at low (or flight) idle prior to reverse and so there is unlikely to be significant change in engine power. The effect of engine usage and risk of inducing physical damage is moot.
The ECAM will identify the faulty engine, if the FADEC had applied its detection, reporting and recovery processes.
The aircraft tyre smoke indicates quite heavy wheel breaking, whilst reversers are deployed for only a few seconds. This is suggestive of low reverse power, possibly not above reverse idle on both; this itself could be supporting of the speculative view that the crew were not even trying to be certain of the faulty and normal engines up to and during the reverse selected period.
These comments and speculations are my own view; I do not wish to imply anything other than admiration for the handling of the event and adherence to SOP.
(Basil and lomapaseo, I started writing this offline, I wouldn't disagree ... as its not R&N I decided to paste anyway)
The manoevres carried out in this case are nice and quick after the surge, so IMHO the engines don't stabilise at low (or flight) idle prior to reverse and so there is unlikely to be significant change in engine power. The effect of engine usage and risk of inducing physical damage is moot.
The ECAM will identify the faulty engine, if the FADEC had applied its detection, reporting and recovery processes.
The aircraft tyre smoke indicates quite heavy wheel breaking, whilst reversers are deployed for only a few seconds. This is suggestive of low reverse power, possibly not above reverse idle on both; this itself could be supporting of the speculative view that the crew were not even trying to be certain of the faulty and normal engines up to and during the reverse selected period.
These comments and speculations are my own view; I do not wish to imply anything other than admiration for the handling of the event and adherence to SOP.
(Basil and lomapaseo, I started writing this offline, I wouldn't disagree ... as its not R&N I decided to paste anyway)
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rejected Take Offs
There is one RTO drill because any RTO is a very dynamic event - there will often not be time to assess what the problem is and adjust the RTO drill. The scope for error would be huge hence a SINGLE RTO drill - one that is rehearsed before entering the runway with a touch drill. On a Boeing it's closing the thrust levers, disengaging the autothrottle, monitoring the autobrakes or applying manual braking, deploying full speedbrake and then full reverse. This all happens in a matter of seconds. The non-handling pilot is monitoring all of the above actions, calls out any omissions, advises the handling pilot of the speed during deceleration and advises ATC of the rejected takeoff. After the aircraft halts, again, each crew member has their area of responsibility to complete. There will be a deep breath, an assessment of the problem and then the appropriate actions.
At high speed, the number one priority is to bring the aircraft safely to a halt on the tarmac/stopway with each pilot completing specific tasks as the aircraft is stopped. There is no time to hear a bang, feel a yaw, look at the instruments, have a chat then initiate the stopping actions, modifying them based on the malfunction.
The dynamic and sometimes hazardous nature of a high-speed RTO is also the reason that only a small list of issues on the takeoff roll, in the high-speed regime (above 80-100 knots) warrant stopping the aircraft as opposed to taking the problem in to the air.
This RTO was initiated at just over 100 knots and so is in the high-speed/energy regime.
At high speed, the number one priority is to bring the aircraft safely to a halt on the tarmac/stopway with each pilot completing specific tasks as the aircraft is stopped. There is no time to hear a bang, feel a yaw, look at the instruments, have a chat then initiate the stopping actions, modifying them based on the malfunction.
The dynamic and sometimes hazardous nature of a high-speed RTO is also the reason that only a small list of issues on the takeoff roll, in the high-speed regime (above 80-100 knots) warrant stopping the aircraft as opposed to taking the problem in to the air.
This RTO was initiated at just over 100 knots and so is in the high-speed/energy regime.
Last edited by bucket_and_spade; 26th Jun 2013 at 15:32.
Just had confirmation from my friends in the Thomas Cook hangar (I used to contract there) that it wasn't a bird strike, and just a "tired old engine"
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: England and Colorado
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Knowing Thomas Cook, I wouldn't be surprised if it did....
But alas, no, it was changed today*
* to an older engine.
But alas, no, it was changed today*
* to an older engine.
Last edited by Trumps; 26th Jun 2013 at 19:35.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A330 engine explodes on takoff from Manchester
Interesting video making the rounds..
Manchester Airport UK. Monday 24 June 2013. Destination was to be Dominican Republic Thomas Cook A330
Manchester Airport UK. Monday 24 June 2013. Destination was to be Dominican Republic Thomas Cook A330
Last edited by FlightPathOBN; 26th Jun 2013 at 20:26.