Aparently at the 1130ish bmi from LHR to BHD was taxing out and about to commence take off runs when a pax spotted flames out of back of engine. They informed the steward who told the captain who aborted a take off roll and shut down the engine on the runway then taxied off.
They got back on stand and then disembarked. Engineering spent around 45mins looking at the engine then cleared it to be reboarded and depart again. They either ran engine on stand or pushed with pax and tried to start the engine. When Captain tried to start her lots of smoke came out then a huge bang and the Captain shortly came on PA to tell them a replacement aircraft would be needed as the engine would now need replaced as it had exploded but they should have no cause for alarm.
Anyone confirm this?
By: andrewm - 29th January 2006 at 13:05
Children Children
By: PMN - 29th January 2006 at 12:25
Sorry. Just the way it was written sounded a bit like you didn’t really believe what anyone else was saying.
Only because you chose to interpret my words that way. When someone says ‘I’m always willing to be corrected’, it generally means they’ve taken what you say on board. Had I have said ‘well, actually I think you’re wrong’, then your interpretation of my words would have been logical and correct.
Mis-understandings do happen though 🙂
Paul
By: Hugh Jarse - 29th January 2006 at 11:48
That isn’t what I’ve been lead to believe but I’m always willing to be corrected.
Sorry. Just the way it was written sounded a bit like you didn’t really believe what anyone else was saying.
By: PMN - 29th January 2006 at 01:44
PMN – I can assure you it is not normal. Read the post from the engineer on the thread about his experience of them. I may only drive them but I do also know a certain amount of what it is all about.
If you re-read my post in reply 19 I did say I’m always willing to be corrected…
Paul
By: Hugh Jarse - 28th January 2006 at 23:14
PMN – I can assure you it is not normal. Read the post from the engineer on the thread about his experience of them. I may only drive them but I do also know a certain amount of what it is all about.
By: PMN - 27th January 2006 at 23:27
PMN – Torching to some, jetpipe fire to others. Either way it is not normal and would cause some serious engine inspections. See a thread I started a couple of weeks back showing a video of a jetpipe fire.
That isn’t what I’ve been lead to believe but I’m always willing to be corrected 🙂
A321s ey Paul? :dev2:
Bloody hairdriers :D.
Watch it Morley!
Paul
By: Hugh Jarse - 27th January 2006 at 20:23
PMN – Torching to some, jetpipe fire to others. Either way it is not normal and would cause some serious engine inspections. See a thread I started a couple of weeks back showing a video of a jetpipe fire.
By: bmi-star - 27th January 2006 at 20:11
BA are Still flying early A320’s aren’t they? Isn’t one of them chassis no. 6????
Indeed they are, i beleive the A320-100’s were delievered to BCal in 1988?
By: cheesebag - 27th January 2006 at 19:47
BA are Still flying early A320’s aren’t they? Isn’t one of them chassis no. 6????
By: BFS - 27th January 2006 at 18:08
Just to add to this topic, BHD arrivals now available on ceefax page 457.
By: andrewm - 26th January 2006 at 18:39
😮 take that back 😮
By: LBARULES - 26th January 2006 at 18:28
Fair enough. I stand corrected 🙂
Paul
A321s ey Paul? :dev2:
Bloody hairdriers :D.
By: andrewm - 26th January 2006 at 18:13
so when the media report people dont think “OMG Airline XXX just crashed ill never fly them again”
By: strawsonh - 26th January 2006 at 17:55
This is completely unrelated to this incident but i didnt think it was worth its own thread.
Why when an aircraft crashed, the first thing they do is paint out the aircraft markings airline name, logo etc.
By: PMN - 26th January 2006 at 17:39
PMN – the captain said it “exploded” when he tried to restart it after the engine was worked on and said it would need a new engine. Flames of the back of the engine was what was seen on prep for departure.
Given the Captain took the aircraft off the runway and back to stand he must have thought it warrented action. Further confirmed when it “blew up” and now needs replaced.
Fair enough. I stand corrected 🙂
Paul
By: allmcc - 26th January 2006 at 17:19
BMI’s A321s were all registered new in 1999 & 2000 so in real terms aren’t that old compared to some of the aircraft currently being operated by UK airlines!
By: andrewm - 26th January 2006 at 17:15
PMN – the captain said it “exploded” when he tried to restart it after the engine was worked on and said it would need a new engine. Flames of the back of the engine was what was seen on prep for departure.
Given the Captain took the aircraft off the runway and back to stand he must have thought it warrented action. Further confirmed when it “blew up” and now needs replaced.
By: PMN - 26th January 2006 at 16:37
The thread title is perhaps a little misleading. I’d hardly call ‘flames out of back of engine’ an explosion! This can, under some circumstances actually be quite normal (an effect known as ‘torching’, where un-burnt fuel in the engine is ejected and ignited). Would still be a little un-nerving for the passengers though!
Paul
By: RhysD - 26th January 2006 at 16:17
Two incidents a day apart! From a maintenance point of view, Id surely say they’re glad to get rid of them! They are fairly old though by now…
By: andrewm - 26th January 2006 at 16:12
My dad was just about to depart LHR on a bmi to BHD and the A321 has been towed back onto stand as their is a problem with nose wheel gear. They are currently replacing the two tyres.
BD must be glad to get rid of some A321s!
Sign In
January 25, 2006 at 7:25 pm