Flames coming from engine on landing

[NYGiantsFan90]

story

 

[nycbusdriver]

story

Latin American overhaul? Can't wait to see who did the last overhaul or hot section.

Interesting choice of words: "...the engine itself was not on fire." I assume it means the the engine fire detectors were not triggered, but who knows what the news reporter meant. It would not be surprising that the fire detectors would not trigger if the flames were confined to the aft section of the engine and tail cone, since the detection loops are forward of that area. There's fire in the aft section all the time when the engine runs, and that's a good thing usually.

 

[NYGiantsFan90]

Latin American overhaul? Can't wait to see who did the last overhaul or hot section.

Interesting choice of words: "...the engine itself was not on fire." I assume it means the the engine fire detectors were not triggered, but who knows what the news reporter meant. It would not be surprising that the fire detectors would not trigger if the flames were confined to the aft section of the engine and tail cone, since the detection loops are forward of that area. There's fire in the aft section all the time when the engine runs, and that's a good thing usually.

The engine overhaul is done in the US depends on the engine type on who does it.

 

[Hope777]

The engine overhaul is done in the US depends on the engine type on who does it.

Well Based on the Flight Number, it would have been an East A319 Aircraft.

 

[autofixer]

It looks like a simple tailpipe fire. Oil or unused fuel leaks from the aft portion of the tailpipe and ignites. Probably no danger and it is aft of all of the fire loops so there is no indication in the cockpit. They always look more impressive than they are. Don't get me wrong, it is an issue that must be addressed, but not such a big deal as is being made. I guess this is the world we live in, everyone has a camera in their cell phone.

 

[algflyr]

.... is aft of all of the fire loops so there is no indication in the cockpit.....

Well, the crew declared an emergency. So there must have been some sort of ECAM indication. Or a pax reported it to the crew...

 

[nycbusdriver]

Well, the crew declared an emergency. So there must have been some sort of ECAM indication. Or a pax reported it to the crew...

Or, they heard the screams from the cabin.

I guess that would be a report of sorts from the pax.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Well, one thing is for sure - the US spokesperson (whatever her name was) made it as clear as mud by saying that "flames were coming from the engine" but that "the engine wasn't on fire." Flames but no fire? I assume that she had been told that the core wasn't on fire, which would indicate that the fire was in the bypass ducting from the fan section or in the cowling but outside the engine itself (the pic is small so it's hard to tell for sure but it looks like it's coming from the fan air ducts).

There was a report on Flyertalk that the fire was out by the time they landed and the plane taxied to the gate and deplaned normally, so it would seem that the crew shut down the engine which stopped the flow of whatever was burning.

Jim

 

[Harry Callahan]

I just received an email from my buddy in mtc control with the same picture & the note:
" A/C 758 Compressor failed".

 

[nycbusdriver]

If the fire was out before landing, it might have just gone out of its own accord due to a power change, or some other factor. Absent an indication in the cockpit that would require an in flight shutdown, I'm not certain it would be a great idea to off an engine in flight that was actually producing power and was otherwise stable. A tailpipe fire can be frightening and spectacular to onlookers, but it is not in and of itself an indication of "severe damage."