Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Rods2 on 31 May 2013, 18:19:06
-
The emergency landing of a BA jet at Heathrow recently was due to maintenance staff not closing and latching the engine cowl doors on both engines on the Airbus 319. :o :o :o :o
Apparently this is the 33rd incident where this has happened on an Airbus, although it is the first time it has caused a fire where the doors snapped off on takeoff and ruptured a fuel line. (They were lucky they did not have a repeat of the AF Concorde) :o :o :o :o
Most modern cars have a door open warning light, why after 32 previous incidents haven't Airbus aircraft been fitted with something like this??? Apparently when flight crew do their pre-takeoff inspection, this is not easy to spot as you have to crouch to view the bottom of the engine. I bet there are a few BA pilots now checking this before takeoff! :o :o :o :o
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2333956/British-Airways-maintenance-staff-left-engine-doors-open-emeregency-plane-causing-rip-fuel-line-off.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2333956/British-Airways-maintenance-staff-left-engine-doors-open-emeregency-plane-causing-rip-fuel-line-off.html)
-
As expected. ::) Bird strike my @rse!
What concerns me is the decision to turn back to LHR from the Chelmsford area with 2 potentially failed engines.. Straight across central London. Unless they didn't know the cowlings had disappeared from both. :-\
I'd wager an A319 won't glide 25 miles on 6,000 feet of height. ;)
The crew would have been better prepared to land back at base than any other field, but what if they'd had a double failure? Still, at least they did get it back on the ground safely.
I'm guessing the fuel leak could have been isolated, unlike on the AF Concorde, as it wasn't a hole straight into the fuel tank.
-
Like you say Rods you'd think there'd be a warning light or buzzer to alert that the bonnet was still up... :-\
-
At the very least, the Captain would send his
lackey F/O to do the walkround checks. I wonder if it was raining ::)
And before everyone blames Airbus for it, the cowlings are designed elsewhere...in this case probably by CFM, who made the engines. If they weren't designed in house, CFM would most certainly have had an input :-\
The A318/319/320/321 stands relatively tall, with at least two feet of clearance beneath the engine, unlike a 737, which practically drags them along the ground. Surprised noone else noticed they weren't closed :-\
I'd wager an A319 won't glide 25 miles on 6,000 feet of height. ;)
Maybe not, but it's the same wing as the A321, which is nearly twice the size, which might improve the odds a bit. Certainly would have made either Stansted or Southend without braking a sweat :y
-
Speaking of Stanstead, having seen the flight path map, why on earth didn't the pilot land there instead? Rather than return to Heathrow further away over a much more densely populated area...?
-
Had they realised what had happened then they might have, though that said, they must have looked out of the windows and spotted the missing panels :-\
Also, Chelmsford to Heathrow is well within ETOPS limits (15 minutes max), if the remaining engine was performing normally, and the fire extinguished, then it is less of an emergency than twin engine failure or a continuing fire, in which case they would have gone straight to Stansted, or even Southend if the approach was more convenient.
If anything happens after rotation, the rule of thumb is to continue climbing using the working engine, address the problem, then decide what/where next :y
-
As expected. ::) Bird strike my @rse!
What concerns me is the decision to turn back to LHR from the Chelmsford area with 2 potentially failed engines.. Straight across central London. Unless they didn't know the cowlings had disappeared from both. :-\
I'd wager an A319 won't glide 25 miles on 6,000 feet of height. ;)
The crew would have been better prepared to land back at base than any other field, but what if they'd had a double failure? Still, at least they did get it back on the ground safely.
I'm guessing the fuel leak could have been isolated, unlike on the AF Concorde, as it wasn't a hole straight into the fuel tank.
With a double engine failure, they could have used the Thames like a Sunderland flying boat! :o :o :o :o
-
Didn't a plane do that in New York a few years ago? :-\
-
Didn't a plane do that in New York a few years ago? :-\
Now, I thought it was Canada, but either way, yes, and saved many many lives...... :y :y
-
Didn't a plane do that in New York a few years ago? :-\
Now, I thought it was Canada, but either way, yes, and saved many many lives...... :y :y
Just shows it is technically possible, but takes some real skill to get right 8)
-
Didn't a plane do that in New York a few years ago? :-\
Now, I thought it was Canada, but either way, yes, and saved many many lives...... :y :y
Hudson river :y
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Airways_Flight_1549
-
Not sure about civvy protocol but I would have thought it would have been the captains responsibility to check things like this before he signs for the aircraft :-\
At the end of the day, somebody needs there gonads kicking off for this >:(
-
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/515531-incident-heathrow-18.html
'Some' useful comments on this issue here. :y
-
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/515531-incident-heathrow-18.html
'Some' useful comments on this issue here. :y
:o :o :o
Jesus, they will be forgetting to nip up bolts on control surface rods next :-X :-X :-X
I wonder if the next time I go flying, they will let me do the BF service ?
In fact, i'll do it for free ;D ;D ;D
Or ............... take the bus
-
I suspect that there will be one or two people hung out to dry, and perhaps an additional check box added to someones paperwork :-\
Obviously a momentary lapse or omission causing a one off incident, after all the A320 family has been kicking around since the late eighties. Still don't understand how the twenty or so people working around the aircraft prior to departure failed to notice the doors not being closed :-\
-
Reading the PPrune blogs, it is clearly a serious issue, as it appears that the design is such that the doors can appear to be closed and locked even when not properly latched ( shades of the THY DC10 cargo door accident). It seems only a matter of time before an A/C is lost because of this. >:( >:( >:( ???
-
Why has it only just become an issue then, after 25years of service :-\
Surely there are at least three latches on each of the four cowlings :-\ it has been 7 years since I was last near one, but when you close the cowling, you stow the stays, then lower the panel on to its guides then latch it. Even if you try and close them on the piss you might get one catch done up, but you'd struggle to do it, and would therefore know it was wrong. Surely :-\
The DC10 problem was a design flaw in the latch mechanism which allow undertrained loaders to force it shut without actually latching it :o then as soon as the aircraft is pressurized the hold doors blow open, taking the floor with it. Quite a crap design all round :-\
-
Reading the PPrune blogs, it is clearly a serious issue, as it appears that the design is such that the doors can appear to be closed and locked even when not properly latched ( shades of the THY DC10 cargo door accident). It seems only a matter of time before an A/C is lost because of this. >:( >:( >:( ???
I remember that well, and the distant "boom" over the Channel whilst walking along Hastings beach that Sunday afternoon, after which we learnt about the disaster.
I also remember my amazement when only a few months later my ex and I visited a business colleague who lived close to the Heathrow runways, and we watched a DC9 readying for take-off, and a pilot came down the rear walkway that had dropped down, and literally kicked shut with his boots a large lower panel. Afterwards I awaited the report that aircraft had also crashed, but thank God nothing happened.
-
It would seem that the push back crew not only have to do a final walk round check, they have to verbally inform the crew that all doors and panels are secure prior to the start of the push back.
As the AAIB have pictures of the aircraft on pushback that show that the cowls were un latched and it was daylight, then those responsible should be banned from ever working on aircraft again imo >:(
-
It would seem that the push back crew not only have to do a final walk round check, they have to verbally inform the crew that all doors and panels are secure prior to the start of the push back.
As the AAIB have pictures of the aircraft on pushback that show that the cowls were un latched and it was daylight, then those responsible should be banned from ever working on aircraft again imo >:(
Indeed.
-
While, on the face of it, there appears to be a prima facie case of negligence against either ground crew, flight crew, or both, if I have learnt anything in my 45 years in aviation, it is, to wait for the full report on the incident before apportioning blame. I well remember circumstances with which I have been involved that could have resulted in serious accident or injury, which after study of all related facts shed a very different light than that which appears obvious, so, let's wait and see. :-X :y
-
Can't talk for civvy aviation Shack BUT in my past life, SOME people do tend too get hung out to dry while OTHER people tend to get away with a slapped wrist or scot free :-X :-X >:( >:(
Normally depends on "engender's" at the time :(
-
Can't talk for civvy aviation Shack BUT in my past life, SOME people do tend too get hung out to dry while OTHER people tend to get away with a slapped wrist or scot free :-X :-X >:( >:(
Normally depends on "engender's" at the time :(
I think that could be said of any situation where a decision carries a risk to health or welfare, more than a poor decision on office furnishings, if you get my drift........ ;):y :y
-
Can't talk for civvy aviation Shack BUT in my past life, SOME people do tend too get hung out to dry while OTHER people tend to get away with a slapped wrist or scot free :-X :-X >:( >:(
Normally depends on "engender's" at the time :(
Well my experience is split evenly between military and commercial aviation, but I was not referring to any particular area, rather that things are not always as they seem, and it is necessary to discover all the circumstances obtaining at the time of an incident, in order to establish exactly why something happened. :y
-
Why has it only just become an issue then, after 25years of service :-\
Well, as Shackeng says, pure idle speculation until the true (as opposed to Daily Fail) facts are known, but I can imagine one thing that might have changed in those 25 years, with the arrival of budget airlines, is the pressure to get more flights away with less staff on the ground. I guess it's not hard to speculate where that might lead... :(
If there's an opportunity to make the aircraft inherently safer, then it's a good thing to do, of course, but any aircraft modification, however small, will be expensive just to prepare the vast pile of paperwork required to enable the job to be done before an engineer even lays his hands on the machine itself.
I speak with experience only of the world of gliding, where it's bad enough, despite the aircraft being about the most simple device that can take to the air.
Hence, aircraft types generally remain unmodified unless there's a great deal of pressure for corrective action, and generations of pilots speak about the day they were lucky to walk away after succumbing to their "gotchas" in the bars of airfields worldwide. ::)
-
I'll also add this to Kevin's post if I may ...............
Over the last 20 years or so, not only has the "blame culture" developed but the general attitude of people has changed.
Now days, people are more likely to say f**k it, it will be picked up by somebody else OR oops, I breaked up so how can I get out of this / pass the blame on to others >:(
Hence my comment about engenders :)
In my past life, yes we worked under pressure BUT we also covered each others arses and more importantly, we got the job done, safely :)
Again, no aircraft left my Pan / HAS until WE (the see off team) was happy ;)
No matter how much the growbags in the cockpit blubbed ;D ;D
In fact, I had the dubious honour of closing the HAS doors on some little shit pilot officer who insisted he was going to take a aircraft when I said no ::) >:(
-
Everyone given a Ramp pass has a responsibility to report anything that might seem amiss, however trivial :-\
The Aviation industry is, or should be, one of open reporting. Sure someone might get a wrist slapping, but preventing an incident, however minor, has to come first :-\
-
Everyone given a Ramp pass has a responsibility to report anything that might seem amiss, however trivial :-\
The Aviation industry is, or should be, one of open reporting. Sure someone might get a wrist slapping, but preventing an incident, however minor, has to come first :-\
Yup, that's the way it should be :(
-
We saw the result over the Atlantic on the known freezing ASI pitot tube problem and the lack of urgency on replacing them for a modified version which eliminated this. Lets hope we do not have a repeat of this scenario where the engine cowling doors are left unlatched. Although it is a small percentage compared with the number of flights, 33 similar incidents seems to me to be very high for a repetitive and potentially serious problem where no action has been taken to improve safety. :o :o :o :o
-
I suspect the issue lies with the person closing the cowlings rather than the cowlings themselves :-\ hence a limit to the reaction, politics not withstanding.
33 similar incidents over 25 years and probably well over 6 million flying hours to put it into perspective :y
-
Speaking of Stanstead, having seen the flight path map, why on earth didn't the pilot land there instead? Rather than return to Heathrow further away over a much more densely populated area...?
If you go to http://planefinder.net/ (http://planefinder.net/), click 'playback', set the date and time to 24/05/13 08:15 and speed to, say, x10, you'll see BAW762 take off at about 8:20, fly at 6000 feet above the m25 to near Basildon then fly back right across central London. It lands then all the other planes scatter from the screen.
-
Speaking of Stanstead, having seen the flight path map, why on earth didn't the pilot land there instead? Rather than return to Heathrow further away over a much more densely populated area...?
If you go to http://planefinder.net/ (http://planefinder.net/), click 'playback', set the date and time to 24/05/13 08:15 and speed to, say, x10, you'll see BAW762 take off at about 8:20, fly at 6000 feet above the m25 to near Basildon then fly back right across central London. It lands then all the other planes scatter from the screen.
Yep, you can see the aircraft in front of it on final approach did a go-around (well, more of a "go-away", I guess) quite late in the proceedings. I wonder if this was the point where the starboard engine threw its' toys out of the pram and he upgraded his "pan" to an emergency?