BMI engine fails
Thread Starter
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
From: UK
BMI engine fails
Taken from the Northern Echo 23/08/06
'Miraculous' escape on flight to London
A PILOT narrowly avoided disaster last night when a jet's engine failed seconds before take-off.
Passengers described how the pilot slammed on brakes to abort the flight as sparks sprayed from the damaged engine.
Kevin Wilson, the chairman of the Master Photographers Association who was on the flight from Durham Tees Valley Airport, said: "It was a miraculous escape. We are very, very lucky the plane had not lifted off.
continued...
"If it had, the pilot told us, the aircraft would not have been able to sustain itself."
The drama began as a BMI flight to London, with about 50 people on board, was about to take off at 6.30pm.
Mr Wilson said: "The aircraft was accelerating and was building up to maximum revs for take-off when I heard a loud explosion.
"I saw a shower of sparks flying over the wing from the engine, as the pilot jammed on his brakes.
"I couldn't see smoke, but could smell it."
The aircraft was then surrounded by fire engines, which doused the engine with foam.
Mr Wilson said: "There was oil all over the runway. The passengers were evacuated by steps brought to the aircraft and led to the perimeter."
He added: "The pilot came up to us and explained that, although it was an emergency, he had not used the chutes as he had everything under control and didn't want to risk anyone breaking their limbs."
A spokesman for the airport said alternative flight arrangements would be made for the passengers.
The runway was reopened once the oil was cleared, and no other flights were disrupted, he said.
'Miraculous' escape on flight to London
A PILOT narrowly avoided disaster last night when a jet's engine failed seconds before take-off.
Passengers described how the pilot slammed on brakes to abort the flight as sparks sprayed from the damaged engine.
Kevin Wilson, the chairman of the Master Photographers Association who was on the flight from Durham Tees Valley Airport, said: "It was a miraculous escape. We are very, very lucky the plane had not lifted off.
continued...
"If it had, the pilot told us, the aircraft would not have been able to sustain itself."
The drama began as a BMI flight to London, with about 50 people on board, was about to take off at 6.30pm.
Mr Wilson said: "The aircraft was accelerating and was building up to maximum revs for take-off when I heard a loud explosion.
"I saw a shower of sparks flying over the wing from the engine, as the pilot jammed on his brakes.
"I couldn't see smoke, but could smell it."
The aircraft was then surrounded by fire engines, which doused the engine with foam.
Mr Wilson said: "There was oil all over the runway. The passengers were evacuated by steps brought to the aircraft and led to the perimeter."
He added: "The pilot came up to us and explained that, although it was an emergency, he had not used the chutes as he had everything under control and didn't want to risk anyone breaking their limbs."
A spokesman for the airport said alternative flight arrangements would be made for the passengers.
The runway was reopened once the oil was cleared, and no other flights were disrupted, he said.
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
From: Co.Durham UK
mmmm..was not on board but had just landed and taken "Juliet" to allow the Bmi Airbus (not 737) to backtrack for 23 departure. As we taxied down Alpha I heard the call from the FD that they had a stall, tower replied acknowledging they had seen the flames. They will have been lucky to get anywhere near even 20kts...could be wrong but they had not travelled far at all. Steps put on the AC and pax disembarked....really was a miraculous escape! Did not realise Airbus were single crew "A PILOT narrowly avoided disaster"
Makes for good reading though
Makes for good reading though
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
From: Here, there & everywhere
FACT - As I saw it happen.
The A320 G-MIDR had started it's take off roll, probably doing no more than 70 kts (I am no expert in judging speeds from distance) when the no.2 engine appeared to 'back fire', with some sparks ommitted from said engine. The aircraft was halted immediately on 23 with the Fire Service in attendance very swiftly. The aircraft was fully shut down and pax disembarked via normal pax steps.
The whole incident appeared to be very well handled by the Crew, Fire Service and Aviance, the pax I understand were re-accomodated on the BD65 which dropped in en route EDI-LHR.
The aircraft is now in the hangar having it's engine changed.
This was the second 'drama' at MME yesterday, the first being a Hawk which made an emergency landing after the canopy shattered fighting with a large bird.
The A320 G-MIDR had started it's take off roll, probably doing no more than 70 kts (I am no expert in judging speeds from distance) when the no.2 engine appeared to 'back fire', with some sparks ommitted from said engine. The aircraft was halted immediately on 23 with the Fire Service in attendance very swiftly. The aircraft was fully shut down and pax disembarked via normal pax steps.
The whole incident appeared to be very well handled by the Crew, Fire Service and Aviance, the pax I understand were re-accomodated on the BD65 which dropped in en route EDI-LHR.
The aircraft is now in the hangar having it's engine changed.
This was the second 'drama' at MME yesterday, the first being a Hawk which made an emergency landing after the canopy shattered fighting with a large bird.
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
From: UK
Originally Posted by Pilotdom
why would the aircraft not have been able to sustain itself with one engine after take-off?
Anyway why let inconvenient facts get in the way of a good story
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 791
Likes: 56
From: A better place now!
"If it had, the pilot told us, the aircraft would not have been able to sustain itself."
Better get the CAA to remove the aircraft from Perf A!
Sounds like a most frightful experience, with only the superhuman efforts of the pilot wrestling with the controls narrowly avoiding disaster.
Apparently, if the aircraft had got airborne, it would have passed over several schools and hospitals on its' planned route! WHEW!!!
PS (nice abort!)
Better get the CAA to remove the aircraft from Perf A!
Sounds like a most frightful experience, with only the superhuman efforts of the pilot wrestling with the controls narrowly avoiding disaster.
Apparently, if the aircraft had got airborne, it would have passed over several schools and hospitals on its' planned route! WHEW!!!
PS (nice abort!)
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 916
Likes: 0
From: Near sheep!
Okay media, sort yourselves out!!
The pilots executed an aborted takeoff during what sounds like an engine malfunction. Had it happened in the air a shut down would have taken place along with application of rudder, and a single engine approach for an uneventful landing!
I cant stick this anymore.
"....BMW pulls into hard shoulder due to pandemonius engine failure, narrowly missing buses and cars...."!!
The pilots executed an aborted takeoff during what sounds like an engine malfunction. Had it happened in the air a shut down would have taken place along with application of rudder, and a single engine approach for an uneventful landing!
I cant stick this anymore.
"....BMW pulls into hard shoulder due to pandemonius engine failure, narrowly missing buses and cars...."!!
I'd say it's just the usual rubbish that the papers produce, especially considering it was the Northern Echo 
Joined: Mar 1999
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
From: Spin City
I can't believe some of the comments here in a supposedly 'professional' forum.
Up to 100kts is regarded as slow speed abort and could even be considered routine. The fact that the pilot 'jammed on' the brakes is a function of the autobrake function on take off. Above 72kts the autobrake 'arms' itself and any subsequent closing of the thrust levers will automatically result in a full automatic brake application. With carbon brakes this can be fairly dramatic! (B.t.w the use of max autobrake is forbidden for landing so very few people have actually experienced it except in an abort.)
References to Perf A etc:
There is a small matter of a speed called V1 which with the sort of pax. number described here would have been about 130kts (dry) give or take. Before 100kts it is prudent to abandon take off for any reason, however small. Above 100kts and before V1 then he will only abandon the take off for engine fire, engine failure, or something which would affect the ability to get airborne (inc. sidestick failure(s) etc.)
In this case an 'amber caution' would have appeared and the captain would have simply closed the thrust levers, automatic brakes engage, he may or may not have even selected reverse thrust, and steered the aircraft to a halt. He would then put the cabin crew 'at stations' pending further instructions from him. Easy, and far from the heroics attested to here!
At V1 (which is the speed at which the first retarding action should have been taken and NOT a 'decision speed') even if an engine was to fail, it can accelerate to flying speed and safely get airborne. No big deal!
The engines are under the most stress during extreme power changes and most surges/stalls will occur in the early take off phase or at top of descent. It is very rare to see one let go when the power has stabilised.
The sparks that were saw were probably the turbine melting and being ejected, and the smoke/fumes in the cabin a combination of hot brakes and smoke ingestion through the air conditioning packs.
I little knowledge can be a dangerous thing and it pays to get things into perspective.
Hope this helps.
Up to 100kts is regarded as slow speed abort and could even be considered routine. The fact that the pilot 'jammed on' the brakes is a function of the autobrake function on take off. Above 72kts the autobrake 'arms' itself and any subsequent closing of the thrust levers will automatically result in a full automatic brake application. With carbon brakes this can be fairly dramatic! (B.t.w the use of max autobrake is forbidden for landing so very few people have actually experienced it except in an abort.)
References to Perf A etc:
There is a small matter of a speed called V1 which with the sort of pax. number described here would have been about 130kts (dry) give or take. Before 100kts it is prudent to abandon take off for any reason, however small. Above 100kts and before V1 then he will only abandon the take off for engine fire, engine failure, or something which would affect the ability to get airborne (inc. sidestick failure(s) etc.)
In this case an 'amber caution' would have appeared and the captain would have simply closed the thrust levers, automatic brakes engage, he may or may not have even selected reverse thrust, and steered the aircraft to a halt. He would then put the cabin crew 'at stations' pending further instructions from him. Easy, and far from the heroics attested to here!
At V1 (which is the speed at which the first retarding action should have been taken and NOT a 'decision speed') even if an engine was to fail, it can accelerate to flying speed and safely get airborne. No big deal!
The engines are under the most stress during extreme power changes and most surges/stalls will occur in the early take off phase or at top of descent. It is very rare to see one let go when the power has stabilised.
The sparks that were saw were probably the turbine melting and being ejected, and the smoke/fumes in the cabin a combination of hot brakes and smoke ingestion through the air conditioning packs.
I little knowledge can be a dangerous thing and it pays to get things into perspective.
Hope this helps.