Aircraft has now been towed away.
Appears that it lost covers off the engines. Most odd.
|
>> Aircraft has now been towed away.
>> Appears that it lost covers off the engines. Most odd.
There are long standing issues with engine covers on some versions of the Airbus (depending on whether they have GE or IAE engines). AAIB report may be interesting reading.
|
Was it Fursty Ferret throwing a wobbly?
Pat
|
>> Was it Fursty Ferret throwing a wobbly?
>>
>> Pat
>>
Fortunately not - safely spectating with a coffee from home. Big thumbs up to the flight crew for a tough job in difficult circumstances.
|
I've been asked to remove a couple of posts from this thread as they don't want members speculating as to who their employer is.
Vx.
|
>> as they don't want members speculating as to who their employer is.
IBM still worried about Zero, huh.
|
>> Aircraft has now been towed away.
>> Appears that it lost covers off the engines. Most odd.
>>
If you are referring to it as depicted at the end of the article, it hasn't lost anything.
The shrouds are still back in reverse thrust mode from the landing. Presumably the pilot went straight for the engine kill switches ASAP (given that an engine fire was suspected) without moving the throttles back from the reverse position.
|
>> If you are referring to it as depicted at the end of the article, it
>> hasn't lost anything.
>> The shrouds are still back in reverse thrust mode from the landing. Presumably the pilot
>> went straight for the engine kill switches ASAP (given that an engine fire was suspected)
>> without moving the throttles back from the reverse position.
There are clearly nacelle shrouds missing from the left engine both on the ground and in video taken with a camera phone during the flight.
|
|
I don't think so, Bromp. Or I can't spot it, anyway. The shrouds are still back as designed, which does uncover the engine but I can't see anything missing.
|
|
It looks as if the panel is back/missing on the video shot from inside the cabin. If it is part of the thrust reverse system normally it's only available after wheels have weight on. It's inhibited in flight normally. Even if you can deploy whilst in flight not sure you'd want to. There also looks to be something in the airflow, possibly a rubbing strip.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Fri 24 May 13 at 14:08
|
I may be completely wrong, but I did think I'd seen some shrouds slide back on planes whilst still in the air.
Is there some other shroudy-type thing which might slide back which is not part of the thrust reverse thing that I might have seen?
|
>> I may be completely wrong, but I did think I'd seen some shrouds slide back
>> on planes whilst still in the air.
>>
>> Is there some other shroudy-type thing which might slide back which is not part of
>> the thrust reverse thing that I might have seen?
>>
You might have, tbh I'm more familiar with the bucket type systems. So it might well have done, the video still didn't look right too me, looked like an access panel open (by whatever means) during flight, mind you wouldn't be the first one.
|
|
Is that how it's meant to look? I suppose I don't often sit by the window but I've flown on dozens of A319s and never noticed the shrouds open like that.
|
Look out of the window when you land. You'll see the entire engine shroud slide back to reveal the reverse thrust vents for the bypass fan.
Back in the days of good 'ol noisy turbojets, a simple bucket would drop down at the back to redirect the jet exhaust forwards. Modern, high-bypass fanjets derive the majority of their thrust from the fan rather than the jet engine itself (think of it as like a ducted prop). These achieve reverse thrust by moving the shroud back and redirecting the fan thrust forwards through ducts revealed in the engine's casing.
As the jet itself is still thrusting forwards, the reverse thrust achievable (fan thrust - jet thrust) is less than the maximum forward thrust possible (fan thrust + jet thrust), but still adequate to slow the aircraft sufficiently.
|
Footage on SKY and other news, shows passenger footage from window showing the port engine. The fire was in the starboard.
The fault was seen on take off by tower at Heathrow. SKY show path flight took before landing. Okay they have to dump fuel, but why was it taken around North of London over Essex then back around across East, Central, West London with one, possibly 2 defective engines.
Looking back to the Concorde Paris crash, surely the need to land should have been a priority. Otherwise the route it took back could have been a major incident.
He did fly near to Luton, Stanstead, Southend and Manston. Surely better to land at one of these than try and "wing" it back to Heathrow, considering the route it took. All these have adequate crash facilities, both airport and local.
Glad it all ended safely though.
|
|
Not sure the A320 family has the facility to dump fuel, X.
|
>> Not sure the A320 family has the facility to dump fuel, X.
According to posts on PPRUNE it does not.
|
>> Not sure the A320 family has the facility to dump fuel, X. >>
It was an A319.
|
>> >> Not sure the A320 family has the facility to dump fuel, X. >>
>>
>> It was an A319.
I know.
The A320 family comprises the original A320, it's longer derivative the A321 and the A318 and A319 'minibus' versions.
|
|
I don't think a route to the South would have been any less risky to those on the ground than the route they took. It doesn't matter how many airfields there are on the Northern route - if you are overweight for landing they are of no use.
|
>> I don't think so, Bromp. Or I can't spot it, anyway. The shrouds are still
>> back as designed, which does uncover the engine but I can't see anything missing.
This BBC page includes the vid taken by a passenger on LHS of cabin. I don't think all that plumbing on the engine should be visible in flight. Post landing footage shows the corresponding covers on the outboard side of the nacelle are also missing.
I've not seen any picture of the right side of the aircraft.
There have been several previous instances back to 2000 of A320 series aircraft shedding their fan cowl doors. Said to be easy, on at least some versions dpending on engine installed, for them to be not properly latched after maintenance.
There's an item in the latest AAIB Annual Report covering the issue although the relevant recomendations are said to have been met and the issue closed.
www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources/Annual%20Safety%20Report%202012.pdf see p15.
|
>> There are clearly nacelle shrouds missing from the left engine both on the ground and
>> in video taken with a camera phone during the flight.
>>
Yes, I spotted the open left engine side door in the bit taken from inside the aircraft (open, not missing). Yet the footage taken from the ground clearly shows the right engine smoking like billy-ho.
Puzzling.
|
BBC are reporting that a Pakistan International flight from Lahore to Manchester has been investigated by RAF Tornados and subsequently diverted to Stansted.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22658979
|
|
The pilot of the plane who landed at Heathrow with the engine on fire was praised because he positioned it when coming to a standstill so that the wind was blowing in a direction away from the aircraft.
|
>> The pilot of the plane who landed at Heathrow with the engine on fire was
>> praised because he positioned it when coming to a standstill so that the wind was
>> blowing in a direction away from the aircraft.
A practice recommended after after the accident to Boeing 737 G-BGJL at Manchester in 1985.
Take off was aborted after an engine failure but flames from the ensuing fire blew across the fuselage. Fatalities were from inhalation of toxic smoke.
|
>> A practice recommended after after the accident to Boeing 737 G-BGJL at Manchester in 1985. Take off was aborted after an engine failure but flames from the ensuing fire blew across the fuselage. Fatalities were from inhalation of toxic smoke. >>
Sadly I knew one of the passengers who died in this incident.
|
I was in one of these aborted flights once, five or ten minutes out of Maputo in Mozambique in a Boeing 737. The announcement was in Portuguese but even I understood the term 'problemas technicas'. Even before the aircraft started its U turn the happy, chattering passengers subsided into a worried silence which didn't end until it had landed safely in Maputo.
The problem was with the engine on my side. Mechanics opened the covers and removed a component with a spiral casing, looked a bit like a big flat turbocharger. They whipped the new one in in no time. About 40 minutes as I remember. But I missed my onward flight from Lusaka and had to spend the weekend there.
|
This may be of some interest. I was actually looking at flight radar 24 (for the route taken by the BA flight) when the initial PIA emergency was declared! Missed the opportunity to watch the reroute unfold live.
twitter.com/flightradar24/status/337917499968466944
|
If anyone has the pro version of the app on their phone, and had the emergency squawk function turned on (called show notifications), you'd have been alerted of the emergency squawk 7700 signal. I didn't know it did this and picked up an emergency call from a Russian plane once.
|
>> the emergency squawk function turned on (called show notifications),
>> you'd have been alerted of the emergency squawk 7700 signal.
I didn't know it did that... but it's turned on now.
Thanks.
|
|
Be warned it might go off in the middle of the night sometime ;-) And it will no doubt use some battery power.
|
|
BBC1 News just showed the aircraft in flight with smoke coming from the right engine and a passenger video of a cowling sement open at the front the of the left engine. Nowhere near thrust reversers, just an access panel. Could have got nasty with 2 engines, both with different faults.
|
>> Be warned it might go off in the middle of the night sometime ;-)
>> And it will no doubt use some battery power.
Thanks for the warning..
Will try and explain to SWMBO if/when it happens, a bit of bluster along the lines of "stupid phone" might cover it ;-)
|
>> a bit of bluster along the lines of "stupid phone" might cover it ;-)
What, when you're woken up at 3am by an emergency klaxon and the words 'Ublyudniki Amerikanki! Aaaargh!' screamed repeatedly until cut off by a sort of huge bang? Hope she's gullible.
|
>> Hope she's gullible.
No, she isn't, but after the thick end of 40 years she understands/tolerates me.
And, I don't expect the phone to utter more than a noise of my choice in the settings for that app, and only when the app is running. (but I may be wrong).
|
Looks like I owe Lud an apology -
>> What, when you're woken up at 3am by an emergency klaxon and the words 'Ublyudniki Amerikanki! Aaaargh!'
>> screamed repeatedly until cut off by a sort of huge bang?
The phone does an alert regardless of the app running or not, so the phone got the blame.
The chosen alert noise was not as exciting (for me) as the words above, but something over Uzda* was in distress about 13:00 our time today.
*
bycity.org/uzda/
|
|
I might not have spelt it out, but I did say you be notified of an emergency at anytime. When I installed the app, it was several weeks before I got an alert like this. The app was not running.
|
>> BBC are reporting that a Pakistan International flight from Lahore to Manchester has been investigated
>> by RAF Tornados and subsequently diverted to Stansted.
>>
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22658979
>>
Not unless it also flow through a timewarp as well ;) Typhoons these days Bromptonaut.
|
What is the purpose of the Typhoon escorts?
Is it to "keep an eye on" or provide moral support?
Or is it to shoot the passenger jet down in the event that this could prevent something worse happening?
|
|
Ultimately, isn't this to shoot down a plane? Last resort?
|
>> Not unless it also flow through a timewarp as well ;) Typhoons these days Bromptonaut.
I knew that probably wasn't right as I typed it but couldn't get the right name.
|
In the event of no radio contact the RAF are called upon. They pull along side and have a secret signal / code that they go through to state that they are safe - not sure of the detail, but it consists of dipping wing tips in a certain sequence to indicate that all is OK.
I think ultimately if the aircraft was going to be used as a weapon to threaten considerable on ground life then it would be shot down
|
>> I think ultimately if the aircraft was going to be used as a weapon to
>> threaten considerable on ground life then it would be shot down
Whereupon it would threaten on ground life.
|
|
Thats part of the decision process, where is it going to crash?
|
|
where you shoot it down, is not where it crashes. You also cant make it fly to somewhere safe to shoot it down. Over the UK, someone, somewhere is going to get crapped on from a height.
|
|
Yes it will have a fwd momentum, a very erratic one. Although there are clearly better places than others. Hence it being a top level decision.
|
|
The Centre of Birmingham for example 'may' be a good choice.
|
>> would anyone notice?
>>
Surely they'd notice such a massive improvement?
|
>> where you shoot it down, is not where it crashes. You also cant make it
>> fly to somewhere safe to shoot it down. Over the UK, someone, somewhere is going
>> to get crapped on from a height.
>>
We've had that before. Tony and Gordon.
|
>>Whereupon it would threaten on ground life.
It's always amazed me how much green there is down there when viewed from above (and how many swimming pools!).
I would think an aircraft crashing randomly would cause less damage than one used as a guided missile.
|
>> In the event of no radio contact the RAF are called upon. They pull along
>> side and have a secret signal / code that they go through to state that
>> they are safe -
>>
There's a secret signal? No one told me...
|
Yup.
Screaming, crying, hands to head, yanking hair is the secret sign for all is not well.
Laughing, pointing, mooning the Typhoon pilots is the secret sign for all is well.
|
>> >> In the event of no radio contact the RAF are called upon. They pull
>> along
>> >> side and have a secret signal / code that they go through to state
>> that
>> >> they are safe -
>> >>
>>
>> There's a secret signal? No one told me...
Wouldn't be secret if you knew.
|
|
I hope you know Fursty you'r the pilot.Problaby a two finger signal.
|
INTERCEPTION PROCEDURES & SIGNALS
BASIC PROCEDURE
Applicable in most countries unless specific procedures are listed.
INTERCEPTION SIGNALS
Signals initiated by intercepting aircraft and responses by intercepted aircraft
Series INTERCEPTING Aircraft Signals Meaning INTERCEPTED Aircraft Responds
1 DAY – Rocking wings from a position
slightly above & ahead of, and,
normally to the left of, the intercepted
aircraft and, after acknowledgement, a
slow level turn, normally to the left, on
to the desired heading.
NIGHT – Same and, in addition,
flashing navigational lights at irregular
intervals.
Note 1 –Meteorological conditions or
terrain may require the intercepting
aircraft to take up a position slightly
above & ahead of, and to the right of,
the intercepted aircraft and to make
the subsequent turn to the right.
Note 2 –If the intercepted aircraft is
not able to keep pace with the
intercepting aircraft, the latter is
expected to fly a series of race– track
patterns and to rock its wings each
time it passes the intercepted aircraft.
You have been
intercepted.
Follow me
AEROPLANES:
DAY – Rocking wings and following.
NIGHT – Same and, in addition,
flashing navigational lights at irregular
intervals.
HELICOPTERS:
DAY or NIGHT – Rocking aircraft,
flashing navigational lights at irregular
intervals and following.
Note –
Additional action required to be taken
by intercepted aircraft is prescribed in
Chapter 1. Interception Signals –
General.
2 DAY or NIGHT – An abrupt breakaway
manoeuvre from the intercepted
aircraft consisting of a climbing turn of
90 degrees or more without crossing
the line of flight of the intercepted
aircraft.
You may proceed AEROPLANES:
DAY or NIGHT – Rocking wings.
HELICOPTERS:
DAY or NIGHT – Rocking aircraft.
3 DAY – Circling aerodrome, lowering
landing gear and overflying runway in
direction of landing or, if the
intercepted aircraft is a helicopter,
overflying the helicopter landing area.
NIGHT – Same and in addition,
showing steady landing lights.
Land at this
aerodrome.
AEROPLANES:
DAY – Lowering landing gear,
following the intercepting aircraft and,
if after overflying the runway landing is
considered safe, proceeding to land.
NIGHT – Same and, in addition,
showing steady landing lights (if
carried).
HELICOPTERS:
DAY or NIGHT – Following the
intercepting aircraft and proceeding to
land, showing a steady landing light (if
carried
|
|
Mobiles not allowed in aircraft, switched on at least, so not that useful. When I flew, all this info was in a encyclopedic book carried in the aircraft and civvy aircraft had the info too, obviously although, as noted above, not all nations were signatories to the protocol. I once intercepted an aircraft in the Middle East which encroached on our airspace, it was a freighter and had a tail number which was not listed by ICAO. I was told to leave him alone, he was over the sea and it was subsequently established that it was probably taking guns and ammo from Afghanistan to Mogadishu. Reg was BR-BOX I recall
|
|
It sounds like you've led an interesting life Sir.
|
|
Thank you. I am sure we have all had interesting times in our varied fields of endeavour!
|
|
BBC News reports that the investigation will centre on how covers were lost from both engines at takeoff. Possibilities seem to be a mechanical defect (with which the US TSB is helping because the engines are American-made) or incorrect maintenance procedures.
Last edited by: WillDeBeest on Thu 30 May 13 at 18:35
|
|
Even I can figure out that the engine covers were not locked shut.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Thu 30 May 13 at 18:37
|
|
Some here fancied they were operating correctly.
|
An AAIB bulletin on investigation to date is expected shortly, possibly later today.
Information from US NTSB that one engine was shut down and other on fire are bieng denied. Focus seems to be on loss of cowling covers and links to pervious instances of same problem on IAE engined A320 series machines.
|
>> AAIB Special Bulletin just published.
>>
>> www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/special_bulletins/s3_2013___airbus_a319_131__g_euoe.cfm
>>
>> Not had time to read it yet.
Missed the edit.
Both fan cowl doors were unlatched and so observed by (CCTV?) pictures at pushback. Both sets seperated on take off and 'took out' other componenents including engine sensors etc and high lift devices.
While the left engine functioned correctly throughout the right was leaking fuel and took fire which could not be fully extiguished by discharge of the on board extinguishers. The samll remainig fire in the engine was put out by fire service on the runway.
|
|
Interesting reading. Given the damage to the aircraft I would have thought that would have made quite a noise when the doors detached.
|
As seen on the pics taken afterwards, you can see the fuel leak. Makes sense it jammed the slats. I've not really heard of the latch problem. If this is the same problem, it would 'pass' a substitution test. I wonder how much has been attemtped by airbus to stop the problem? The hf report would make interesting reading. I suspect the rules for see offs and ins are different in FF's world. Does the captain do a walk round in civvy street?
As brompt says it is an ongoing issue I suspect, it is a repetitive task that is easily not carried out correctly to my mind. I've no doubt caa are asking why?
|
|
Been a bit neurotic about this ever since I read the Safety First article back in 2012. Hopefully this will provoke a modification from Airbus that stops it happening again.
Last edited by: Fursty Ferret on Fri 31 May 13 at 22:05
|
FF, a couple of questions if I may?
Does the a/c captain have to do a walk round before flight?
Does the person who completes the 'see off' supervised?
Do normal airports have the runway 'caravan' ?
|
Looks as though AAIB report on this is imminent. An article appeared briefly on Guardian website yesterday but was removed as it breached publication embargo.
Seems to start with fatigued engineers.....
|
|
Report now published - AAIB Report 1/2015. Training at CAB again today so not had time to read. News media suggest that as well as engineering issue pilots came close to shutting down wrong engine.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 14 Jul 15 at 11:39
|
>>News media suggest that as well as engineering issue pilots came close
>> to shutting down wrong engine.
News media is in effect wrong, whilst correct engine shut down procedure was not followed, there was no confusion about which engine to shut down nor was any attempt made to shut down the wrong engine.
It was a failure in procedures that caused the problem,
|
|
Had a look at the report, nothing new so far, including working on the wrong a/c. Panels not fitted/closed aren't that rare.
|
This incident is classic 'Murphy's Law' territory - if it can happen then eventually it will.
Cowlings need to be designed so that either (a) engine will not function unless they're latched closed or (b) if left open they close and latch under aerodynamic forces at speed below V1.
|
>> Cowlings need to be designed so that either (a) engine will not function unless they're
>> latched closed or (b) if left open they close and latch under aerodynamic forces at
>> speed below V1.
>>
a isn't really wanted, various reasons you might want to run them with doors open. b is very difficult. Much better idea is to make all replenshments through simple access panels. If they do get missed it's not so much of a drama. Infact I'm surprised they all aren't.
|
The cowl doors are big, heavy, structural components of the engine. I spent some time last year having a close look at them while the engine was being inspected for something else and came to the conclusion that a "Cowls Unlatched" caution would be technically very difficult to implement.
For a start, even when they *are* closed, they're not always flush or perfectly aligned so a simple micro switch / proximity sensor is likely to trigger false alerts. Even the latches don't look flush sometimes. You could do it, but you'd need multiple signals and some kind of logic to interpret them.
That has to be integrated into the engine FADEC, which means extra wiring, testing, and exceptionally expensive software development. Following that you then need to update the flight warning computers on the Airbus, which tend to be a mix of generations across the fleet. That's not as easy as it looks - for example, would you choose to inhibit the alert during the take-off roll (probably)?
|
|
Didn't I read something in the report about a mechanism to hold them wider open when unlatched, which would presumably be spotted in the walk-round if not before.
|
|
When in a destroyer off East Africa as a baby sailor is saw a panel fall off a jet that was approaching us from astern at low level. A bit apprehensive about getting involved in things I knew nothing about I reported what I had seen. I later found out that the aircraft was immediately recalled to the nearby carrier (Ark Royal) where something was found to be missing. The pilot bought me a crate of beer, a huge (and illegal) reward in those days, probably facilitated by the captain of the destroyer being an ex pilot.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Wed 15 Jul 15 at 09:26
|
>> When in a destroyer off East Africa...........
I have checked the movements of Ark Royal and she sailed from Aden in March 1962 to relieve HMS Centaur as Far East carrier. We were one of the destroyer squadron based in Malta and had escorted Ark Royal as far as East Africa acting as plane guard, picking up things that had fallen off or missed the carrier. After leaving Aden we spent a week off East Africa with Ark Royal before she headed for Singapore and we visited Mombasa and Zanzibar (as was) before returning to Malta.
|
>> Didn't I read something in the report about a mechanism to hold them wider open
>> when unlatched, which would presumably be spotted in the walk-round if not before.
>>
It props them slightly open, but it doesn't really stand out IMHO. There are many engines whose cowl doors look slightly wonky anyway! I suppose the good thing is that it makes you check and I've had engineers out to look at an engine that I wasn't convinced by.
|
Emergency landing at Heathrow - henry k
