Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Rods2]

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. 

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)

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! 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2333956/British-Airways-maintenance-staff-left-engine-doors-open-emeregency-plane-causing-rip-fuel-line-off.html

[Kevin Wood]

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.

[Sir Tigger KC]

Like you say Rods you'd think there'd be a warning light or buzzer to alert that the bonnet was still up... 

[05omegav6]

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

[CG2]

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...?

[05omegav6]

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

[Rods2]

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! 

[Sir Tigger KC]

Didn't a plane do that in New York a few years ago? 

[Vamps]

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......

[05omegav6]

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......

Just shows it is technically possible, but takes some real skill to get right

[henryd]

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......

Hudson river

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Airways_Flight_1549

[tigers_gonads]

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 

[Shackeng]

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/515531-incident-heathrow-18.html

'Some' useful comments on this issue here.

[tigers_gonads]

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/515531-incident-heathrow-18.html

'Some' useful comments on this issue here.

 

Jesus, they will be forgetting to nip up bolts on control surface rods next 

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 
Or ............... take the bus

[05omegav6]

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