Losing an engine on take-off

[pushthebutton]

Hifly130 said:

Remember the engine cowl incident a few years back on a certain flag carrier taking off out of LHR? The report on that certainly made interesting reading.

First and last response due to thread creep.

Should I go back and look at all of EasyJet's flight safety reports over the last X years? No doubt they'd make sobering reading.

I neither want nor need to as the level and severity of all events will roughly equal out across (most) Western just-culture airlines.

[Hifly130]

I neither want nor need to as the level and severity of all events will roughly equal out across (most) Western just-culture airlines.

[/quote]

I think we agree to the same point.

Desperately trying to avoid thread creep but will say the general public will still hold BA in higher regard to safety. BA and Easy both have had very similar incidents regarding cowls at a nearly the same time but if you read the daily mails comments section after each event there was a marked difference. BA pilots were hero’s whereas all the comments to the latter were very negative.

[Speed 3]

Hifly130 said:

Desperately trying to avoid thread creep but will say the general public will still hold BA in higher regard to safety. BA and Easy both have had very similar incidents regarding cowls at a nearly the same time but if you read the daily mails comments section after each event there was a marked difference. BA pilots were hero’s whereas all the comments to the latter were very negative.

...exactly why the LCC's have such an intense focus on safety, Jo Public & the media have a perception that is far from reality. 1st world legacy flag carriers generally have very good safety management systems but the top level LCC's, certainly in Western Europe are a notch above.

[Starfighter]

My recollection was that EasyJet had the engine cowling issue a couple of time including a double failure in Milan. I believe the BA incident was more serious as the cowling damaged some of the externals on the V2500 engine and forced a shut down and evacuation due to a fire warning. The EasyJet CFM56s we’re still fully operational.

[pushthebutton]

Speed 3 said:

...exactly why the LCC's have such an intense focus on safety, Jo Public & the media have a perception that is far from reality. 1st world legacy flag carriers generally have very good safety management systems but the top level LCC's, certainly in Western Europe are a notch above.

Go on then. 'a notch above'?

Where have you got that from?

[Speed 3]

pushthebutton said:

Go on then. 'a notch above'?

Where have you got that from?

Working for both and witnessing CAA audits ?

[Munter]

| |
| | < The rails......This Thread >
| |

[Hifly130]

The event at MXP happened to 1 engine. I don’t think the engine ingested any of the debris the just did overweight landing back into MXP.

Personally I would put the likes of BA,Ezy,TUI, Ryanair on an equal level, but not one above the other.

[Chuck328]

Speed 3 said:

pushthebutton said:

Go on then. 'a notch above'?

Where have you got that from?

Working for both and witnessing CAA audits ?

I did hear ( a good few years back ) after some audits had been done, whisperings within the CAA, that if BA wanted to see where to go, "take a look at what Easy are doing within their safety department".

That raised an eyebrow.

Suffice to say, BOTH are arguably no better or worse than the other in the grand scheme these days. Both excellent. Unlike some foreign outfits.....

[phil squares]

Interesting topic and more interesting responses. From my perspective, as a pilot with over 30 years of commercial aviation, my last position was TRE 777/787 (have flown the 320) and 11 years active duty military as a pilot and another 10 years in the reserves I would seriously question the decision of the PIC.

My entire career, it has been drilled into my head if you get a compressor stall you don't know what, if any damage has occurred. Same for sudden engine failure and subsequent re-light. You don't know if the engine will continue to run or what damage was done.

So, the most prudent decision is to return and let maintenance sort it out. Yes, it is an inconvenience to the passengers, but not worth the risk in my opinion. Certainly, if there was a subsequent problem you would be having a rather stern conversation with the Chief Pilot and with the regulator authorities.

[Hifly130]

phil squares said:

Interesting topic and more interesting responses. From my perspective, as a pilot with over 30 years of commercial aviation, my last position was TRE 777/787 (have flown the 320) and 11 years active duty military as a pilot and another 10 years in the reserves I would seriously question the decision of the PIC.

My entire career, it has been drilled into my head if you get a compressor stall you don't know what, if any damage has occurred. Same for sudden engine failure and subsequent re-light. You don't know if the engine will continue to run or what damage was done.

So, the most prudent decision is to return and let maintenance sort it out. Yes, it is an inconvenience to the passengers, but not worth the risk in my opinion. Certainly, if there was a subsequent problem you would be having a rather stern conversation with the Chief Pilot and with the regulator authorities.

How long ago did you fly the bus?

I wouldn’t say it’s a black and white decision. If it was the QRH procedure would have LAND ASAP red/amber which it isn’t.It would also depend on the severity of the stall, the conditions you’ve just taken off from in LGW. Also their flight to BFS would have taken them over numerous potential suitable alternatives. I believe BFS is also an engineering base for them.

With the high traffic conditions in LGW it’s not going to be just a quick 10 minute circuit unless your declaring an emergency which for an engine operating now normally would be a bit overkill. Yes maybe if you had just taken off out of Iceland you might want to return or if you’ve got a long flight to a interesting destination you might return.

As Im sure you know being a TRE one answer doesn’t fit all situations.

[anonymous-user]

phil squares said:

Interesting topic and more interesting responses. From my perspective, as a pilot with over 30 years of commercial aviation, my last position was TRE 777/787 (have flown the 320) and 11 years active duty military as a pilot and another 10 years in the reserves I would seriously question the decision of the PIC.

My entire career, it has been drilled into my head if you get a compressor stall you don't know what, if any damage has occurred. Same for sudden engine failure and subsequent re-light. You don't know if the engine will continue to run or what damage was done.

So, the most prudent decision is to return and let maintenance sort it out. Yes, it is an inconvenience to the passengers, but not worth the risk in my opinion. Certainly, if there was a subsequent problem you would be having a rather stern conversation with the Chief Pilot and with the regulator authorities.

This was a transient event that self corrected though. One bang and flash seen in the cabin due to the momentary reversing of airflow and maybe some increase in EGT or N1 depending on what aircraft you’re in etc. We don’t really know what cockpit indications there were and what (if any) action was taken.

I’ve had engine surge/stall in a B757 years ago due to bird strike and it was continuously surging bang. . bang . . bang every half second or so, then there is no doubt you need to follow the non normal checklist and (On a Boeing) switch off the auto throttle and reduce thrust to a level where the surging stops or in the 777787 case you mentioned, for the “ eng surge”caution message to blank (or the thrust lever to reach idle). On the 787 the engine surge message only appears when

“An engine surge or stall that requires crew action is detected.“

If it’s transient and self correcting would you get the message at all? As a 787 TRE if a crew you were examining had a momentary single engine surge in the climb and no engine surge message would you expect them to disengage the auto throttle and reduce thrust to blank a message that hadn’t appeared?

If you’d (or the OPs crew) had a sustained compressor surge/stall and they’d actioned the non normal checklist (on a Boeing) then I’d agree a return would be necessary as you’d be operating on reduced thrust and you’ve likely had damage or could get damage but if you’ve had a momentary surge and no non normal checklist to action and all engine indications are normal would you automatically return to land with both engine indications suggesting they’re now running normally?

Only the Boeing ‘engine failure’ and ‘engine severe damage’ non normal checklists advise you to “ Plan to land at the nearest suitable airport.” I would certainly view a surge and particularly a transient momentary surge differently to an engine failure or severe damage myself.

So for me, a single momentary transient surge wouldn’t automatically result in a return to land. If I’d actioned the non normal checklist and had to operate at reduced power to stop the surging then it would, depending on suitability of airfields etc.

[caiss4]

I experienced one of these many years ago in a BA Tristar on take off from Kuwait.

All I can say is it's the one and only time I wish I'd been wearing my brown chords

It happened just as the aircraft rotated. It was the tail engine and there was a significant explosion accompanied by some smoke in the cabin and a great deal of screaming from passengers at the back of the aircraft.

After a momentary nose drop full throttle was applied to the other two engines and we took off. My first reaction was that we'd go around and land immediately but we actually circled Kuwait for about 30mins before diverting to Bahrain. Flew home the next day on another aircraft.

Talking to some pilots after the event I was told this wasn't a particularly uncommon event in a Tristar owing to the disruption in airflow over the top of the fuselage when the aircraft rotated.

[Chuck328]

I'd have probably continued. Short flight, lots of divert options (most of which will be company bases ).

There's also the option of the best thing since sliced bread, ACARS (text messaging to various airline departments). Throw it back at company with a message to MOC (engineering) I'd imagine they did exactly that.

[stevep944]

Thanks for all the replies, which are interesting to me as a passenger with no great technical knowledge.
I would add that:
Apart from me and the couple of rows of window seats in front I would think nobody else was aware of anything happening, especially as most passengers have headphones on these days.
The cabin staff definitely did not seem to be going about their normal duties for a while after it happened, but they weren't running around in a panic either!
We carried on at low altitude, definitely not climbing, for a few minutes. I was thinking if we weren't turning back to Gatwick maybe we were heading to Southampton or somewhere.
When we got off the plane at Belfast there was an 'aircraft maintenance van' parked under the wing.
It is nice to know how highly EasyJet and our other airlines are regarded safety-wise.
Cheers all.

[anonymous-user]

Chuck328 said:

There's also the option of the best thing since sliced bread, ACARS (text messaging to various airline departments). Throw it back at company with a message to MOC (engineering) I'd imagine they did exactly that.

How retro, don’t you have satcoms? Wouldn’t ACARS take a while to send and receive a reply?

[anonymous-user]

stevep944 said:

Thanks for all the replies, which are interesting to me as a passenger with no great technical knowledge.
I would add that:
Apart from me and the couple of rows of window seats in front I would think nobody else was aware of anything happening, especially as most passengers have headphones on these days.
The cabin staff definitely did not seem to be going about their normal duties for a while after it happened, but they weren't running around in a panic either!
We carried on at low altitude, definitely not climbing, for a few minutes. I was thinking if we weren't turning back to Gatwick maybe we were heading to Southampton or somewhere.
When we got off the plane at Belfast there was an 'aircraft maintenance van' parked under the wing.
It is nice to know how highly EasyJet and our other airlines are regarded safety-wise.
Cheers all.

I expect after the noise you heard, there was a period of communication between the pilots and cabin crew about what had happened and gathering of information before making a decision about whether to continue or go back and what had been heard in the cabin. Perhaps also they levelled off whilst making a decision rather than climbing farther away from the airfield.

Captain, “are the passengers worried, did they notice anything?”
Chief hostie “nah they’re all asleep or watching their phones and iPads, one bloke who was looking out the window looks a bit concerned though”

There was always a suggestion that low cost and cost cutting means cutting back on safety and training but with easyJet and Ryanair it’s definitely not the case.

I’ve flown with a number of ex easyJet and Ryanair pilots and they’ve all been excellent and their training has been fantastic. They might talk down other aspects of those companies but not their training departments or their safety cultures.

Those companies that have expanded rapidly and have taken low hour pilots and promote them quickly have to have robust training setups, the fact that they fly lots and do lots of shorter sectors helps keep their skills up also.

[Chuck328]

El stovey said:

Chuck328 said:

There's also the option of the best thing since sliced bread, ACARS (text messaging to various airline departments). Throw it back at company with a message to MOC (engineering) I'd imagine they did exactly that.

How retro, don’t you have satcoms? Wouldn’t ACARS take a while to send and receive a reply?

How retro? How condescending.

On short haul, no we don't.

As the OP pointed out, a maintenance vehicle was present on arrival, job done.