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.

BMI engine fails
 

BMI from MME to LHR engine failed as it was taxiing towards the runway when the Engine failed. All ok

All ok

Was it a major explosion then?

Sensationalised as usual :ugh:

Still caused a bit of havoc at DTVA last night, closing the runway for an hour or two. Not sure if the aircraft made it out this morning.

not as far as i know....the 737 is still standing and engineers were working on it today. Loud "crack" was reported!

All OK ?
 

XL319.
How fast were they taxying then ??
See they all made it back to the terminal !
Sounds all very dramatic....................................oh dear !!

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

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.:ouch:

why would the aircraft not have been able to sustain itself with one engine after take-off?

It would be able too. It's just "shock horror" bullsh!t of the most unintelligent kind. :rolleyes:

'cause the journo quoted the pax who quoted someone who looked like the crew...

:rolleyes:

50 pax and only going to LHR. Hardly a HGW take off:ugh: Anyway why let inconvenient facts get in the way of a good story:ok:

I know its scandalous some of the reporting that goes on and I often have people at work asking questions such as that due to reporting in newspapers!

How fast was it taxiing??? Someone asks me...jesus H get a grip!!! How fast are you allowed to taxi? :*

"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!!!

:ugh:

PS (nice abort!)

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...."!! :mad:

As the aircraft was probably below Vmcg and certainly below V1 it wouldn't have been able to continue its Take-Off safely. Surely that's what they're getting at!

As if they'd know that :} I'd say it's just the usual rubbish that the papers produce, especially considering it was the Northern Echo :mad: who don't exactly back DTV in the first place :=

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.

Hi, I flew into MME as the Hawk made its 'emergency' approach, I was doing my Solo Cross-Country and was asked to hold due to an emergency. (Just what I want doing my Solo Qualifier). Not bad for a fairly quiet airport to have 2 emergencies in one day.

Well it kept you airborne a little longer, didn't it? :)

Yea, thats true, orbits are boring, however, the extra airbourne time is nice (but costs more, lol).

I would just like to correct some of your remarks, my comments or correction are in bold.

I can't believe some of the comments here in a supposedly 'professional' forum.

This is also a (PRUNE) rumour network—people are entitled to theIr views even if they do not agree with yours. Trying to belittle people may only serve to highlight your own inadequacies



Up to 100kts is regarded as slow speed abort and could even be considered routine. Christ, routine, tell us who you fly for?

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 IF IT IS FUNCTIONING AND HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY SELECTED 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.) ITS NOT FORBIDDEN, IT’S NOT RECOMMENDED

References to Perf A etc:

WHAT SHOULD BE POINTED OUT HERE, IN MY OPINION, IS THAT AN AIRCRAFT THAT SUFFERS A MALFUNCTION BEFORE V1, THAT REDUCES ITS ACCELERATION TO V1, IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, MAY IN FACT NEVER REACH V1. THERE ARE NO PERFORMANCE TABLES FOR DELAYED ACCELERATION TO V1, HOW COULD THERE BE?

A PERFORMANCE A AIRCRAFT IS AN AIRCRAFT THAT CAN SAFELY CONCLUDE ANY FLIGHT BETWEEN BRAKES OFF TO LANDING AFTER A FAILURE OF ONE POWERPLANT. IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT BELOW V1 THAT SAFE CONCLUSION WILL ALWAYS BE A TAKE OFF
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. NOT STRICTLY CORRECT, unless you have briefed you will stop for ANY reason, BMI brief is for any ECAM CAUTION or WARNING, and that does not include the vague ‘any reason’


Above 100kts and before V1 then he or she, lets not forget the girls (good crm) will only abandon the take off for a WARNING, 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' JUDGING BY THE COMMENTS THIS WAS AN ENGINE BREAK UP AND OR A FIRE AND THIS WOULD HAVE PRODUCED A RED WARNING would have appeared and the captain would have simply closed the thrust levers, automatic brakes engage, he OR SHE 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 THE CABIN CREW ARE ALREADY AT STATIONS AND READY TO EVACUATE AFTER AN ABONDONMENT. THE SCA CAN ORDER AN EVACUATION IF THEY FEEL THE CABIN IS NOT A SAFE PLACE TO BE. A HARD LESSON LEARNED FROM THE MANCHESTER AIRTOURS 737 ACCIDENT WHERE DELAY IN EVACUATION COST LIVES.

Easy, and far from the heroics attested to here! I FEEL THAT USING THE WORD ‘EASY’ TO DESCRIBE THIS IS AN INSULT TO THE PILOT COMMUNITY, IF ITS THAT EASY WHY BOTHER PRACTICING IT ON SKILLS CHECKS?

At V1 (which is the speed at which the first retarding action should have been taken and NOT a 'decision speed') this even if an engine was to fail, it can (SHOULD) accelerate to flying speed and safely get airborne. No big deal!
PLEASE DON’T BE CASUAL ABOUT AN EVENT THAT EVERY PILOT DREADS AND HAS BEEN THE CAUSE OF MANY SERIOUS WRONG DECISIONS AND SUBSEQUENT ACCIDENTS.
.

A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing and it pays to get things into perspective. I CERTAINLY AGREE WITH THAT BUT EVERYONE HAS THEIR OWN PERSPECTIVE AND IT IS THAT QUALITY THAT PROMOTES THE INTERCHANGE OF IDEAS WHICH IN ITSELF MAKES A BETTER TWO CREW OPERATION. THE CAA CALL IT HUMAN FACTORS, I CALL IT COMMON SENSE




Hope this helps.[/quote]

No doubt there is a debrief after an event like this for both Flight Crew and Cabin Crew, but what do the Flight Crew do after an incident like this? Do they go through the details with the Engineers? Then a well earned pint in the bar!?

My comments here relate to the LOW SPEED rejection mentioned above, circa 70kts. By routine, I mean that it is no big deal: red light, close levers, stop.

The autobrake self tests upon initial selection and continues to do so on the ground. Autobrake 'MAX' is ALWAYS selected prior to departure (bmi sop's).

Ok I’ll give you that one, a poor choice of language on my part. Although I hope I never experience autobrake MAX on landing!

Correct, that is why you stop.

But giving a limiting field, with no 'range of V1', and a power unit failure below V1, a safe conclusion will almost NEVER be a take off, you don't have enough runway!


Again my comment relates to the 70kt RTO only. As opposed to the high speed (100kts to V1) RTO which is a different animal altogether. The high speed rejection requires reaction, skill, and practice to maintain the required standard.

The 'casual' tone of my post was an attempt (which I probably overdid) to redress the balance of the outlandish report in the newspaper. It was in no way intended to belittle the actions of the individuals on the day. I hate to see reporters sensationalise a story using unqualified witnesses.

The RAF?! :sad: