A321 Captain reported during engine start ground personnel noticed sparks and flames from #1 engine. Flight crew shut down the engine and refused aircraft.

Date: 2024-05 · Aircraft: A321 · Phase: taxi

Anomalies: aircraft-equipment-problem-critical|deviation-discrepancy-procedural-maintenance|deviation-discrepancy-procedural-published-material-policy

Synopsis

A321 Captain reported during engine start ground personnel noticed sparks and flames from #1 engine. Flight crew shut down the engine and refused aircraft.

Narrative

During pushback and engine start. Aircraft Left wing walker noted sparks and flames coming from the #1 Engine. Ground Crew Chief notified me and said that they had never seen and engine do that. Cockpit indications were normal for the start but decided the best course of action would be to shut down and go back to the gate. Coordinated with Ramp and Operations. Local Contract Maintenance was called by the station personnel. Notified Dispatch of return. Informed #1 FA (Flight Attendant) then made a PA to the Passengers. Shutdown checklist completed; agent was at the jet bridge. Local Maintenance arrived almost immediately (shock) and boarded. We briefed him and we agreed to call Maintenance Control via his cell. Also asked the Agent to have the Wing Walker come meet us face to face to hear what he saw. Maintenance Control finally answered the phone; suggested that it might have been a Starter Shaft Sheer and recommended we start the engine at the gate to see if that was the case. Trying not to laugh at such a ridiculous suggestion; I politely declined. Then the contract Maintenance gave me his phone and I spoke directly to Maintenance Control. He finally did some more digging and realized they were monitoring that engine for high time: 70;000 hours on the engine! I told him I was not turning the engine and was not going to take this WT Restricted flight requiring a MAX IMP PERF take off today. Qualified Maintenance personnel need to inspect the engine and turn it without passengers aboard. He agreed. The FO was in agreement with all these decisions and was very helpful throughout; ensuring normal procedures were completed and also helped with communicating with the station manager. We then coordinated the deplane plan with the gate agent and #1 FA. Great work by everyone involved. Cause: Company Aircraft assignments should not be sending a jet with a suspect high time engine to ZZZZ where there is no Company Maintenance or qualified Engine personnel. Suggestions: Specifically; with RWY X out of service for construction; the flights are WT restricted and required MAX performance out of the engines. This needs to be considered when we dispatch airplanes to any of our airports. The previous day we flew a NEO back and for from ZZZ. Why are the NEO's on these longer legs and have the performance to for the single RWY ops in ZZZZ?

More incidents for this aircraft family →

Source: NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (public domain). Reports are voluntary submissions and are not verified by NASA.