A320 aborts takeof at YOW

linecrew · Post by **linecrew** » Tue Jul 26, 2005 4:48 am

An Air Canada A320 had a #2 engine failure on takeof last night at YOW. The crew handled the situation exteremly well and brought the plane to a quick stop. Nobody was injured and the runway has been NOTAM'd closed unitl 8AM local this morning due to debris from either the engine or the tires that blew during the heavy braking. The pax remained on the aircraft due to a suspected 'hot brakes' situation and were bussed back to the terminal 2 hours after the incident.

The somewhat hyped up media version can be read here:

http://www.ottawasun.com/News/OttawaAnd ... 47686.html

Right Seat Captain · Post by **Right Seat Captain** » Tue Jul 26, 2005 4:58 am

I heard about it over Ottawa Terminal's frequency last night. The popular runway 32 was being requested by numerous aircraft, and all I knew was that the requests were denied due to an incident on the runway. Nice to know what it was, and nice to know that everyone is okay!

b767jetmec · Post by **b767jetmec** » Tue Jul 26, 2005 6:48 am

Didn`t realize deploying the flaps in a straight up position could bring an aircraft to a roaring halt.

And does the aircraft actually let out a roar?

gelbisch · Post by **gelbisch** » Tue Jul 26, 2005 8:32 am

Nine-year-old Sydney Rainboth said she was more bored than scared.

"We waited on the plane for two hours. It was so boring," she said. "I wasn't scared at all."

From the mouths of babes!

Anyway, it's nice to hear something Air Canada related with a positive spin on it for a change. Nicely done, lads!

BTD · Post by **BTD** » Tue Jul 26, 2005 8:33 am

I didn't realize that airplanes had flaps that went straight up, must be a special 320. Spoilers maybe? This guy had a lot of info.

Oh well no harm done. Glad everyone is okay.

Redwine · Post by **Redwine** » Tue Jul 26, 2005 6:58 pm

Yes, passengers MUST know the difference between a flap/spoiler/krueger/aileron/slat/slot...Shame on them!!!

Our smart ass remarks only serve to make our own profession look narrow-minded, didn't you know?? LOL

Froggy · Post by **Froggy** » Wed Jul 27, 2005 6:42 pm

Awesome job by the crew! Here's to you!

Just one question if anyone has the answer, I heard that the main wheels were all shredded, did the anti-lock system fail as well? Or was it possibly just a combination of hard braking and high OAT. I can understand the debris on the runway being from the engine!

Anyhow, way to go!

gelbisch · Post by **gelbisch** » Wed Jul 27, 2005 6:55 pm

I don't know much about the 320, but I believe that it's fairly typical on any aircraft to blow your tires on a high-speed reject. I don't think you'd often abort near V1 and then just taxi off the runway.

Those better experienced will correct me if I'm wrong, I'm sure...

PA31 Driver · Post by **PA31 Driver** » Wed Jul 27, 2005 7:14 pm

I was in Ottawa this morning, but didn't see the jet in question......we landed on 32 at around 8:05.......

Right Seat Captain · Post by **Right Seat Captain** » Wed Jul 27, 2005 8:21 pm

PA31 Driver wrote:I was in Ottawa this morning, but didn't see the jet in question......we landed on 32 at around 8:05.......

I saw it yesterday sticking out of the First Air Hangar at the beginning of 25.

Canus Chinookus · Post by **Canus Chinookus** » Wed Jul 27, 2005 11:02 pm

I 'heard' a rumor that a bird may have gone through the engine? Anyone hear that?

Kudos to the crew, that'll have been a nice beeeg shot of adrenaline!

linecrew · Post by **linecrew** » Thu Jul 28, 2005 4:54 am

When I spoke to an engineer who works near the First Air hangar he said he went over to have a look at the damage and when looking in to the engine from behind you could see several missing fan blades. He also said the tail cone from the centre of the engine was blown completely off. His words, not mine.

My coworkers and I actually heard a pretty loud 'thud' sound when the engine blew on Monday and the concussion actually made the walls shake a little bit in the building we were in. That being said, it's not suprising how much damage there was. One things we all noticed as a bit odd was that there was only one bang sound since in the past when we've heard/seen jets experincing compressor stalls there were multiple bangs.

b767jetmec · Post by **b767jetmec** » Thu Jul 28, 2005 8:05 am

This is copied from a co-worker in YYZ...

AC 210? If my memory serves me correctly, during a vib survey
I did early in Feb? I found both engines exceeded their egt limits (I noted the power assurance limits in the MM prior to carrying out the survey). I snagged both engines. One was changed the following night and the other a production permit was issued. It looks like AC got their money's worth out of that eng. if this is indeed the same bird/eng. combo. "Have production permit, will travel"!

Beechball · Post by **Beechball** » Thu Jul 28, 2005 8:48 am

I see a lot of this "good job guys" stuff and I dont get it. Must be real green newbies...
A rejected take off, while abnormal is realtively common whether its a Navajo, King Air, A 320 or whatever. The media got a hold of this one and that says it all. If you're "sim" trained on a 705 machine/operation, then being ready for a reject and able to handle one is very basic. So please.... Enough with the "hero" crap for a rejected T/O. Lame to say the least. For hero's, look to stuff like DC 10 Sioux City, Gimli Glider, that AT flight etc...

gelbisch · Post by **gelbisch** » Thu Jul 28, 2005 11:29 am

I disagree.

A high-speed reject in a 705 a/c can be a mess if mishandled. The quoted passenger had only good things to say, and I think that says it all!

Canus Chinookus · Post by **Canus Chinookus** » Thu Jul 28, 2005 11:52 am

I was involved in my own high speed reject at 135kts, within 5 kts of V1. It's true, it is straight-forward, as long as everything falls into place, which it did for us. You're right, it's no hero thing, it's expected that we do as we're trained, which we did, and also looks like the AC crew did. However, the simulator has nothing over real life events. There are no resets and there are no 'freezes' when you're barrelling down the runway at speeds the F1 drivers dream about. You just don't get the adrenaline in the sim that you do when the shit really hit's the fan.
Also, don't forget the 'surprise' factor. You walk into the sim expecting hell-in-a-hand-basket, but if the stats are right, you won't see 1 sim session's worth of failures your entire career.

balls · Post by **balls** » Fri Jul 29, 2005 3:11 pm

Beechball wrote:I see a lot of this "good job guys" stuff and I dont get it. Must be real green newbies...
A rejected take off, while abnormal is realtively common whether its a Navajo, King Air, A 320 or whatever. The media got a hold of this one and that says it all. If you're "sim" trained on a 705 machine/operation, then being ready for a reject and able to handle one is very basic. So please.... Enough with the "hero" crap for a rejected T/O. Lame to say the least. For hero's, look to stuff like DC 10 Sioux City, Gimli Glider, that AT flight etc...

I totally disagree. RTOs are not common. They are not normal. RTO at high weight and high speed must be considered an emergency. To intiate an RTO, one must have very good reasons to do so as the speed increases to V1. At V1 the decision to continue decision is made for you -- by definition.

Certainly in an EA32 (or bigger) but likely in RJ too (never flown it), RTOs have to be considered as an emergency. The malfunction needs to be "major" in nature above 100 knots. Generally one has to think of 100 knots as the 'go mode' speed as described in many related documents. Prior to that one could reject for a variety of reasons that may not be as critical, such as caution issues. On takeoff, the Airbus types are inhibited from warning all but the most critical, such as failure, fire, and some critical computer failures for the first few hundred feet AGL.

Basic physics tells the story of energy, mass, velocity. The energy at the time of RTO would determine the damage based on factors of speed, weight. The ability of the brakes to absorb energy would also need to comprehend the residual brake temp prior to T/O. The residual temp would be a factor in how much energy the brakes can absorb, therefore probably an operating limitation on such things as max temp prior to TO, brake cooling charts, etc.

The reasons to reject a takeoff MUST be one where you are sure that the aircraft will not fly. Beyond 100 knots have to be issue that are catastrophic in nature, a major malfunction. For example, a blown tire in a dual tire per side type (or more tires per side) would not be a reason to reject beyond 100 knots -- without some other major malfunction associated. There is so much more potential for more serious damage on the RTO. As your energy increases that risk increases.

Airbus types have autobraking. The SOP is to arm the autobrake prior to takeoff. The autobrakes are armed above 70 knots (72 as I remember).

Once armed, if you pulled the thrust levers to idle, the autobrakes kick in at MAX. MAX braking is very coarse, and really only meant for an emer stop.

That RTO energy becomes heat. At high energy, the heat from brakes would likely blow the plugs, and probably deflate the tires. It is entirely possible for the brakes to fuse also I think, but maybe less so with carbon brakes. Brake fire would certainly be a possibility. As I remember, it is not hard to get the brake temps on an A320 on a normal landing into the 300C range, with normal braking. Moderate braking would certainly take 300C easily. 600-1000C in RTO is certainly imaginable in a loaded flight from YOW-YVR. The AC 320/319/321s don't have brake cooling fans. The AF 321s did as I remember.

The pilots are not heros. They did their job. They trained for RTO. But it is not a normal occurrance. The RTO decision CAN NOT be made lightly. It is MUST be considered an emergency, with the potential for major problems.