If you wish to contribute or participate in the discussions about articles you are invited to join SKYbrary as a registered user

 Actions

SKYbrary Wiki

Example Accident Search by Aircraft Property

From SKYbrary Wiki

Accidents and Incidents involving fire with power plant origin

  • A310, Khartoum Sudan, 2008 (On 10 June 2008, a Sudan Airways Airbus A310 made a late night touchdown at Khartoum and the actions of the experienced crew were subsequently unable to stop the aircraft, which was in service with one thrust reverser inoperative and locked out, on the wet runway. The aircraft stopped essentially intact some 215 metres beyond the runway end after overrunning on smooth ground but a fuel-fed fire then took hold which impeded evacuation and eventually destroyed the aircraft.)
  • A319, London Heathrow UK, 2013 (On 24 May 2013 the fan cowl doors on both engines of an Airbus A319 detached as it took off from London Heathrow. Their un-latched status after a routine maintenance input had gone undetected. Extensive structural and system damage resulted and a fire which could not be extinguished until the aircraft was back on the ground began in one engine. Many previously-recorded cases of fan cowl door loss were noted but none involving such significant collateral damage. Safety Recommendations were made on aircraft type certification in general, A320-family aircraft modification, maintenance fatigue risk management and aircrew procedures and training.)
  • A333, vicinity Gold Coast Queensland Australia, 2017 (On 3 July 2017, an Airbus A330-300 was climbing through 2,300 feet after a night takeoff from Gold Coast when the number 2 engine began to malfunction. As a cabin report of fire in the same engine was received, it failed and a diversion to Brisbane was made. The Investigation found that the engine failure was entirely attributable to the ingestion of a single medium-sized bird well within engine certification requirements. It was concluded that the failure was the result of a sufficiently rare combination of circumstances that it would be extremely unlikely for multiple engines to be affected simultaneously.)
  • B732, Manchester UK, 1985 (On 22nd August 1985, a B737-200 being operated by British Airtours, a wholly-owned subsidiary of British Airways, suffered an uncontained engine failure, with consequent damage from ejected debris enabling the initiation of a fuel-fed fire which spread to the fuselage during the rejected take off and continued to be fuel-fed after the aircraft stopped, leading to rapid destruction of the aircraft before many of the occupants had evacuated.)
  • B734, vicinity East Midlands UK, 1989 (On 8 January 1989, the crew of a British Midland Boeing 737-400 lost control of their aircraft due to lack of engine thrust shortly before reaching a planned en route diversion being made after an engine malfunction and it was destroyed by terrain impact with fatal or serious injuries sustained by almost all the occupants. The crew response to the malfunction had been followed by their shutdown of the serviceable rather the malfunctioning engine. The Investigation concluded that the accident was entirely the consequence of inappropriate crew response to a non-critical loss of powerplant airworthiness.)
  • B738, Naha Japan, 2007 (On 20 August 2007, as a Boeing 737-800 being operated by China Airlines on a scheduled passenger flight arrived on the designated nose-in parking stand at destination Naha, Japan in daylight and normal visibility, fuel began to leak from the right wing near to the engine pod and ignited. An evacuation was quickly initiated and all 165 occupants including 8 crew members were able to leave the aircraft before it was engulfed by the fire, which spread rapidly and led to the destruction of the aircraft and major damage to the apron surface. As the stand was not adjacent to the terminal and not served by an air bridge, there was no damage to structures. All occupants had left the aircraft before the Airport RFFS arrived at the scene.)
  • B742, Düsseldorf Germany, 2005 (On 24 January 2005, an Atlas Air Boeing 747-200F overran the end of the landing runway at Düsseldorf after runway braking action notified just prior to landing as medium due to snowfall unexpectedly deteriorated after the snowfall intensified. The overrun led to collision with ground obstacles and engines 2 and 3 caught fire. Escape slide malfunction at the forward left hand door led to an alternative non standard crew evacuation route being used. Significant damage to the aircraft resulted in it being declared a hull loss. The Investigation took almost 8 years to complete and publish.)
  • B743, Dhaka Bangladesh, 2008 (On 25 March 2008, an Air Atlanta Icelandic Boeing 747-300 was decelerating after landing at Dhaka when a fuel leak in the vicinity of the No 3 engine led to a fire which could not be extinguished. An emergency evacuation was accomplished with only a few minor injuries. The cause of the fuel leak was traced to mis-assembly of a fuel feed line coupling during a ‘C’ Check some six months previously. The failure to follow clear AMM instructions for this task in two specific respects was of concern to the Investigating Agency.)
  • B744, Mumbai India, 2009 (On 4 September 2009, a Boeing 744-400 being operated by Air India on a delayed scheduled passenger flight from Mumbai to Riyadh was awaiting take off in normal daylight when ATC advised that there was a fuel leak from the left side, that a fire had started and that the engines should be shut down. An emergency cabin evacuation was carried out using exits on the right hand side and there were 21 minor injuries to the 213 passengers with all 16 crew escaping without injury. The fire on the left hand side was quickly extinguished by the RFFS and aircraft damage was confined to that area.)
  • B762, Los Angeles USA, 2006 (On June 2, 2006, an American Airlines Boeing 767-200ER fitted GE CF6-80A engines experienced an uncontained failure of the high pressure turbine (HPT) stage 1 disc in the No. 1 engine during a high-power ground run carried out in designated run up area at Los Angeles for maintenance purposes during daylight normal visibility conditions. The three maintenance personnel on board the aircraft as well as two observers on the ground were not injured but both engines and the aircraft sustained substantial damage from the fuel-fed fire which occurred as an indirect result of the failure.)
  • B772, Las Vegas NV USA, 2015 (On 8 September 2015, a catastrophic uncontained failure of a GE90-85B engine on a Boeing 777-200 taking off from Las Vegas was immediately followed by a rejected takeoff. A fuel-fed fire took hold and a successful emergency evacuation was completed. The Investigation traced the failure to a fatigue crack in the high pressure compressor well within the manufacturer’s estimated crack initiation life and appropriate revisions to risk management have followed. The main operational risk concern of the Investigation was the absence of any procedural distinction in crew emergency responses for engine fires beginning in the air or on the ground.)
  • B772, Tokyo Narita Japan, 2008 (On July 30 2008, a Boeing 777-200 being operated by Vietnam Airlines on a scheduled passenger flight landed at Narita in daylight and normal visibility and shortly afterwards experienced a right engine fire warning with the appropriate crew response following. Subsequently, after the aircraft had arrived at the parking stand and all passengers and crewmembers had left the aircraft, the right engine caught fire again and this fire was extinguished by the Airport RFFS who were already in attendance. There were no injuries and the aircraft sustained only minor damage.)
  • B773, Singapore, 2016 (On 27 June 2016, a Boeing 777-300ER powered by GE90-115B engines returned to Singapore when what was initially identified as a suspected right engine oil quantity indication problem evidenced other abnormal symptoms relating to the same engine. The engine caught fire on landing. The substantial fire was quickly contained and an emergency evacuation was not performed. The cause of the low oil quantity indication and the fire was a failure of the right engine Main Fuel Oil Heat Exchanger which had resulted in lubrication of the whole of the affected engine by a mix of jet fuel and oil.)
  • B773, Tokyo Japan, 2016 (On 27 May 2016, a Boeing 777-300 crew made a high speed rejected take off when departing from Tokyo after a number one engine failure warning was quickly followed by a fire warning for the same engine and ATC advice of fire visible. As the fire warning continued with the aircraft stopped, an emergency evacuation was ordered. The Investigation found that the engine failure and fire had occurred when the 1st stage disc of the High Pressure Turbine had suddenly failed as result of undetected fatigue cracking which had propagated from an undetected disc manufacturing fault.)
  • CRJ2, en-route, east of Barcelona Spain, 2006 (On 27 July 2006, a Bombardier CRJ200 being operated by Air Nostrum on a scheduled passenger flight from Barcelona to Basel, Switzerland in night VMC, suffered a sudden left hand engine failure and an associated engine fire when passing FL235 some 14 minutes after take off. An air turn back was made with indications of engine fire continuing until just three minutes before landing. An evacuation using the right hand exits was ordered by the Captain as soon as the aircraft had come to a stop and had been promptly actioned with the RFFS in attendance. There were no injuries to the 48 occupants during the evacuation and the only damage was to the affected engine.)
  • CVLP, vicinity San Juan Puerto Rico, 2012 (On 15 March 2012 the right hand engine exhaust of a Convair 440 freighter caught fire soon after take off and the fire was not contained within the exhaust duct or the zone covered by the fire protection system. After shutting this engine down, the subsequent Investigation concluded that the crew had lost control at low airspeed during an attempted turn back due to either an aerodynamic stall or a loss of directional control. It also found that the Operator involved was in serial violation of many regulatory requirements and that FAA oversight of the operation had been wholly ineffective.)
  • DH8C, vicinity Abu Dhabi UAE, 2012 (On 9 September 2012, the crew of a DHC8-300 climbing out of Abu Dhabi declared a PAN and returned after visual evidence of the right engine overheating were seen from the passenger cabin. The Investigation found that the observed signs of engine distress were due to hot gas exiting through the cavity left by non-replacement of one of the two sets of igniters on the engine after a pressure wash carried out overnight prior to the flight and that the left engine was similarly affected. The context for the error was identified as a dysfunctional maintenance organisation at the Operator.)
  • DH8D, en-route, South West Norway, 2004 (On 19 May 2004, a Bombardier DHC8-400 being operated on a scheduled passenger flight from Sandefjord to Bergen by Norwegian airline Wideroe was climbing through 13500 feet approximately 20nm west north west of Sandefjord in day VMC when there was a loud 'bang' from the left engine followed quickly by total power failure and a fire warning for that engine. The crew carried out the QRH drill, declared an emergency and made a return to Sandefjord. Although the left hand engine was shut down and both engine fire bottles had been discharged, the engine warning remained illuminated throughout the remainder of the flight. The aircraft was stopped on the runway after landing and a successful emergency evacuation of all 31 occupants was carried out with no injuries whilst the Airport Fire Service attended to the fire source.)
  • E145, Kemi-Tornio Finland 2008 (On 11 December 2008 an EMB 145 being operated by Finnish Commuter Airlines on a scheduled passenger flight caught fire during the taxi in after a night landing after the APU failed to start and a major electrical power failure occurred simultaneously. The fire was not detected until after the aircraft arrived on stand when, with the passengers still on board, a member of the ground crew saw signs of fire at the back of the aircraft. The aircraft’s own fire suppression system was successfully used to extinguish the fire, the passengers left the aircraft and there were no injuries and only minor damage to the aircraft.)
  • F27, vicinity Jersey Channel Islands, 2001 (Shortly after take-off from Jersey Airport, Channel Islands, a F27 experienced an uncontained engine failure and a major fire external to the engine nacelle. The fire was extinguished and the aircraft landed uneventfully back at Jersey.)
  • L35 / EUFI, manoeuvring, Olsberg-Elpe, Germany 2014 (On 23 June 2014, a civil-operated Learjet 35 taking part in a German Air Force interception training exercise collided with the intercepting fighter aircraft as it began a follow-me manoeuvre. It became uncontrollable as a result of the damage sustained in the collision and crashed into terrain, killing both pilots. The Investigation found that whilst preparation for the exercise by all involved had been in compliance with requirements, these requirements had been inadequate, especially in respect of co-ordination between all the pilots involved, with both the civil and military safety regulatory authorities failing to detect and act on this situation.)
  • MD11, Riyadh Saudi Arabia, 2010 (On 27 July 2010, a Boeing MD11F being operated by Lufthansa Cargo on a scheduled flight from Frankfurt to Riyadh bounced twice prior to a third hard touchdown whilst attempting to land on 4205 metre-long Runway 33L at destination in normal day visibility. The fuselage was ruptured and, as the aircraft left the side of the runway, the nose landing gear collapsed and a fire began to take hold. A ‘MAYDAY’ call was made as the aircraft slid following the final touchdown. Once the aircraft had come to a stop, the two pilots evacuated before it was largely destroyed by fire. One pilot received minor injuries, the other injuries described as major.)
  • MD81, vicinity Stockholm Arlanda Sweden, 1991 (On 27 December 1991, an MD-81 took off after airframe ground de/anti icing treatment but soon afterwards both engines began surging and both then failed. A successful crash landing with no fatalities was achieved four minutes after take off after the aircraft emerged from cloud approximately 900 feet above terrain. There was no post-crash fire. The Investigation found that undetected clear ice on the upper wing surfaces had been ingested into both engines during rotation and initiated engine surging. Without awareness of the aircraft's automated thrust increase system, the pilot response did not control the surging and both engines failed.)
  • MD82, vicinity Lambert St Louis MO USA, 2007 (On September 28, 2007 the left engine of a McDonnell Douglas MD82 caught fire during the departure climb from Lambert St. Louis and an air turn back was initiated. When the landing gear failed to fully extend, a go around was made to allow time for an emergency gear extension to be accomplished after which a successful landing and emergency evacuation from the fire-damaged aircraft followed. The Investigation concluded that the engine fire was directly consequential on an unapproved maintenance practice and that the fire was prolonged by flight crew interruption of an emergency checklist to perform "non-essential tasks".)
  • S61, vicinity Bournemouth UK, 2002 (On 15 July 2002, a Sikorsky S-61 helicopter operated by Bristow suffered a catastrophic engine failure and fire. After an emergency landing and evacuation, the aircraft was destroyed by an intense fire.)

Accidents and Incidents involving aircraft fitted with a General Electric CF6 tagged: Engine - General and Component Fault in service

  • B743, vicinity Jeddah Saudia Arabia, 2008 (On 5 May 2008, a Saudi Arabian Boeing 747-300 being positioned for maintenance to include investigation of degraded power output from the no 1 GE CF6-50 engine experienced an uncontained failure of the same engine shortly after take off from Jeddah followed by an uneventful air turn back. The failure was attributed to the vulnerability of the engine design to high pressure turbine blade loss.)
  • B762, Los Angeles USA, 2006 (On June 2, 2006, an American Airlines Boeing 767-200ER fitted GE CF6-80A engines experienced an uncontained failure of the high pressure turbine (HPT) stage 1 disc in the No. 1 engine during a high-power ground run carried out in designated run up area at Los Angeles for maintenance purposes during daylight normal visibility conditions. The three maintenance personnel on board the aircraft as well as two observers on the ground were not injured but both engines and the aircraft sustained substantial damage from the fuel-fed fire which occurred as an indirect result of the failure.)
  • DC10, en-route, diversion Sioux City USA, 1989 (On 19 July 1989, a United Airlines DC-10 (Flight 232), after earlier improper inspection, suffered an uncontained engine failure which led to loss of hydraulic systems and Loss of Control during an attempted emergency landing, which was followed by a post crash fire.)

Accidents and Incidents involving aircraft fitted with Jet engines

  • A124, Zaragoza Spain, 2010 (On 20 April 2010, the left wing of an Antonov Design Bureau An124-100 which was taxiing in to park after a night landing at Zaragoza under marshalling guidance was in collision with two successive lighting towers on the apron. Both towers and the left wingtip of the aircraft were damaged. The subsequent investigation attributed the collision to allocation of an unsuitable stand and lack of appropriate guidance markings.)
  • A139 / A30B, Ottawa Canada, 2014 (On 5 June 2014, an AW139 about to depart from its Ottawa home base on a positioning flight exceeded its clearance limit and began to hover taxi towards the main runway as an A300 was about to touch down on it. The TWR controller immediately instructed the helicopter to stop which it did, just clear of the runway. The A300 reached taxi speed just prior to the intersection. The Investigation attributed the error to a combination of distraction and expectancy and noted that the AW139 pilot had not checked actual or imminent runway occupancy prior to passing his clearance limit.)
  • A306 / B744, vicinity London Heathrow UK, 1996 (On 5 April 1996 a significant loss of separation occurred when a B744, taking off from runway 27R at London Heathrow came into conflict to the west of Heathrow Airport with an A306 which had carried out a missed approach from the parallel runway 27L. Both aircraft were following ATC instructions. Both aircraft received and correctly followed TCAS RAs, the B744 to descend and the A306 to adjust vertical speed, which were received at the same time as corrective ATC clearances.)
  • A306, East Midlands UK, 2011 (On 10 January 2011, an Air Atlanta Icelandic Airbus A300-600 on a scheduled cargo flight made a bounced touchdown at East Midlands and then attempted a go around involving retraction of the thrust reversers after selection out and before they had fully deployed. This prevented one engine from spooling up and, after a tail strike during rotation, the single engine go around was conducted with considerable difficulty at a climb rate only acceptable because of a lack of terrain challenges along the climb out track.)
  • A306, Paris CDG France, 1997 (On 30 July 1997, an Airbus A300-600 being operated by Emirates Airline was departing on a scheduled passenger flight from Paris Charles de Gaulle in daylight when, as the aircraft was accelerating at 40 kts during the take off roll, it pitched up and its tail touched the ground violently. The crew abandoned the takeoff and returned to the parking area. The tail of the aircraft was damaged due to the impact with the runway when the plane pitched up.)
  • A306, Stockholm Sweden, 2010 (On 16 January 2010, an Iran Air Airbus A300-600 veered off the left side of the runway after a left engine failure at low speed whilst taking off at Stockholm. The directional control difficulty was attributed partly to the lack of differential braking but also disclosed wider issues about directional control following sudden asymmetry at low speeds. The Investigation concluded that deficiencies in the type certification process had contributed to the loss of directional control. It was concluded that the engine malfunction was due to the initiation of an engine stall by damage caused by debris from a deficient repair.)
  • A306, Yerevan Armenia, 2015 (On 17 May 2015, an Airbus A300-600 crew descended their aircraft below the correct vertical profile on a visual daytime approach at Yerevan and then landed on a closed section of the runway near the displaced runway threshold. The Investigation found that the crew had failed to review relevant AIS information prior to departing from Tehran and had not been expecting anything but a normal approach and landing. The performance of the Dispatcher in respect of briefing and the First Officer in respect of failure to adequately monitor the Captain's flawed conduct of the approach was highlighted.)
  • A306, vicinity Birmingham AL USA, 2013 (On 14 August 2013, a UPS Airbus A300-600 crashed short of the runway at Birmingham Alabama on a night IMC non-precision approach after the crew failed to go around at 1000ft aal when unstabilised and then continued descent below MDA until terrain impact. The Investigation attributed the accident to the individually poor performance of both pilots, to performance deficiencies previously-exhibited in recurrent training by the Captain and to the First Officer's failure to call in fatigued and unfit to fly after mis-managing her off duty time. A Video was produced by NTSB to further highlight human factors aspects.)
  • A306, vicinity JFK New York USA, 2001 (On November 12, 2001, an Airbus Industries A300-600 operated by American Airlines crashed into a residential area of Belle Harbour, New York, after take-off from John F. Kennedy International Airport, New York. Shortly after take off, the aircraft encountered mild wake turbulence from a departing Boeing 747-400.)
  • A306, vicinity London Gatwick, 2011 (On 12 January 2011, an Airbus A300-600 being operated by Monarch Airlines on a passenger flight from London Gatwick to Chania, Greece experienced activations of the stall protection system after an unintended configuration change shortly after take off but following recovery, the flight continued as intended without further event. There were no abrupt manoeuvres and no injuries to the 347 occupants.)

Accidents and Incidents involving aircraft fitted with Jet engines with Engine Failure during Take Off

  • A306, Stockholm Sweden, 2010 (On 16 January 2010, an Iran Air Airbus A300-600 veered off the left side of the runway after a left engine failure at low speed whilst taking off at Stockholm. The directional control difficulty was attributed partly to the lack of differential braking but also disclosed wider issues about directional control following sudden asymmetry at low speeds. The Investigation concluded that deficiencies in the type certification process had contributed to the loss of directional control. It was concluded that the engine malfunction was due to the initiation of an engine stall by damage caused by debris from a deficient repair.)
  • A319, London Heathrow UK, 2013 (On 24 May 2013 the fan cowl doors on both engines of an Airbus A319 detached as it took off from London Heathrow. Their un-latched status after a routine maintenance input had gone undetected. Extensive structural and system damage resulted and a fire which could not be extinguished until the aircraft was back on the ground began in one engine. Many previously-recorded cases of fan cowl door loss were noted but none involving such significant collateral damage. Safety Recommendations were made on aircraft type certification in general, A320-family aircraft modification, maintenance fatigue risk management and aircrew procedures and training.)
  • A320, Singapore, 2015 (On 16 October 2015, the unlatched fan cowl doors of the left engine on an A320 fell from the aircraft during and soon after takeoff. The one which remained on the runway was not recovered for nearly an hour afterwards despite ATC awareness of engine panel loss during takeoff and as the runway remained in use, by the time it was recovered it had been reduced to small pieces. The Investigation attributed the failure to latch the cowls shut to line maintenance and the failure to detect the condition to inadequate inspection by both maintenance personnel and flight crew.)
  • A333, vicinity Gold Coast Queensland Australia, 2017 (On 3 July 2017, an Airbus A330-300 was climbing through 2,300 feet after a night takeoff from Gold Coast when the number 2 engine began to malfunction. As a cabin report of fire in the same engine was received, it failed and a diversion to Brisbane was made. The Investigation found that the engine failure was entirely attributable to the ingestion of a single medium-sized bird well within engine certification requirements. It was concluded that the failure was the result of a sufficiently rare combination of circumstances that it would be extremely unlikely for multiple engines to be affected simultaneously.)
  • B732, vicinity Tamanrassat Algeria, 2003 (On 6 March 2003, a Boeing 737-200 being operated by Air Algerie had just become airborne during a daylight departure when the left hand engine suddenly failed just after the PF had called for “gear up”. Shortly afterwards, the aircraft commander, who had been PNF for the departure, took control but the normal pitch attitude was not reduced to ensure that a minimum airspeed of V2 was maintained and landing gear was not retracted. The aircraft lost airspeed, stalled and impacted the ground approximately 1nm from the point at which it had become airborne. A severe post crash fire occurred and the aircraft was destroyed and all on board except one passenger, were killed.)
  • B743, vicinity Jeddah Saudia Arabia, 2008 (On 5 May 2008, a Saudi Arabian Boeing 747-300 being positioned for maintenance to include investigation of degraded power output from the no 1 GE CF6-50 engine experienced an uncontained failure of the same engine shortly after take off from Jeddah followed by an uneventful air turn back. The failure was attributed to the vulnerability of the engine design to high pressure turbine blade loss.)
  • B752, Las Vegas NV USA, 2008 (On 22 December 2008, a Boeing 757-200 on a scheduled passenger flight departing Las Vegas for New York JFK experienced sudden failure of the right engine as take off thrust was set and the aircraft was stopped on the runway for fire services inspection. Fire service personnel observed a hole in the bottom of the right engine nacelle and saw a glow inside so they discharged a fire bottle into the nacelle through the open pressure relief doors. In the absence of any contrary indications, this action was considered to have extinguished any fire and the aircraft was then taxied back to the gate on the remaining serviceable engine for passenger disembarkation. None of the 263 occupants were injured but the affected engine suffered significant damage.)
  • B763, Chicago O'Hare IL USA, 2016 (On 28 October 2016, an American Airlines Boeing 767-300 made a high speed rejected takeoff after an uncontained right engine failure. A successful emergency evacuation of the 170 occupants was completed as a major fuel-fed fire destroyed the failed engine and substantially damaged the aircraft structure. The failure was attributed to an undetected sub-surface manufacturing defect which was considered to have escaped detection because of systemically inadequate materials inspection requirements rather than any failure to apply existing practices. Safety issues in relation to an evacuation initiated by cabin crew following a rejected takeoff and fire were also examined.)
  • B772, Las Vegas NV USA, 2015 (On 8 September 2015, a catastrophic uncontained failure of a GE90-85B engine on a Boeing 777-200 taking off from Las Vegas was immediately followed by a rejected takeoff. A fuel-fed fire took hold and a successful emergency evacuation was completed. The Investigation traced the failure to a fatigue crack in the high pressure compressor well within the manufacturer’s estimated crack initiation life and appropriate revisions to risk management have followed. The main operational risk concern of the Investigation was the absence of any procedural distinction in crew emergency responses for engine fires beginning in the air or on the ground.)
  • B772, Singapore, 2010 (On 14 June 2010, a Boeing 777-200 being operated by British Airways on a scheduled passenger service from Singapore to London Heathrow with a relief crew present on the flight received indications of abnormal functioning of the right engine during a night take off in VMC. Subsequent and directly related developments en route, including greater than planned fuel consumption which put the intended destination out of reach, led to the declaration of a PAN to ATC and diversion to Amsterdam. Inspection after flight found that parts of the right engine were damaged or missing and the latter were matched to previously unidentified debris recovered from the runway at Singapore. None of the 214 occupants were injured.)
  • B773, Tokyo Japan, 2016 (On 27 May 2016, a Boeing 777-300 crew made a high speed rejected take off when departing from Tokyo after a number one engine failure warning was quickly followed by a fire warning for the same engine and ATC advice of fire visible. As the fire warning continued with the aircraft stopped, an emergency evacuation was ordered. The Investigation found that the engine failure and fire had occurred when the 1st stage disc of the High Pressure Turbine had suddenly failed as result of undetected fatigue cracking which had propagated from an undetected disc manufacturing fault.)
  • MD82, Copenhagen Denmark, 2013 (On 30 January 2013, the crew of a Boeing MD82 successfully rejected its take off at Copenhagen after sudden explosive failure of the left hand JT8D engine occurred during the final stage of setting take off thrust. Full directional control of the aircraft was retained and the failure was contained, but considerable engine debris was deposited on the runway. The subsequent Investigation concluded that a massive failure within the low pressure turbine had been initiated by the fatigue failure of one blade, the reason for which could not be established.)
  • RJ85, Helsinki Finland 2010 (On 12 June 2010, a requested 22R runway inspection at Helsinki in normal daylight visibility carried out after a severe engine failure during the take off roll had led an Avro RJ85 being operated by Finnish Airline Blue1 on a scheduled passenger flight to Copenhagen to reject that take off at high speed. This inspection had not detected significant debris deposited on the runway during the sudden and severe engine failure. Two passenger aircraft, one being operated by Finnair to Dubrovnik, Croatia and the other being operated by Swedish airline TUIfly Nordic to Rhodes, Greece then departed the same runway before a re-inspection disclosed the debris and it was removed. Neither of the aircraft which used the runway prior to debris removal were subsequently found to have suffered any damage but both were advised of the situation en route.)