Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Troubleshooting
Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Aircraft; MEL
After takeoff; during gear retraction; we heard and felt 2-3 loud bangs and thuds with associated yaw and shutter of the aircraft. Initially; we considered a landing gear tire might have blown or it was retraction problem due to gear in transit timed with [another] problem. Once gear was fully retracted; a series of bangs and shutters occurred again and during our global assessment (Nothing displayed on ECAM); we noted a spike in temperature on engine 1 EGT as corresponding to the problem. [We suspected] compressor stalls. Reducing the power on engine 1 to idle eliminated the problem and the engine ran normally. We immediately [requested priority handling] with ATC requesting the ARFF equipment; as well as a box pattern back to XXR (longest runway); leveled at 4000 feet MSL; maintained configuration at 180 knots. We ran all appropriate checklists including: Engine 1 Stall in flight with Engine Parameters Normal at Idle; Non-Routine Landing; and Overweight Landing. We made an initial and landing imminent announcement to the flight attendants and passengers. During the initial series of compressor stalls and after the engine was stabilized at idle neither the flight attendants nor any passengers reported any other engine problems such as fire; smoke; vibrations; etc. Once everything was complete we flew the ILS XXC approach to a normal touchdown and landed to a full stop on the runway so that ARFF could look over the aircraft before we taxied uneventfully to the gate. Weight at touchdown was 3;000 to 4;000 pounds over the max with a 200 FPM touchdown. After shutdown; we made 2 logbook entries (Compressor stall after TO and Overweight Landing). We debriefed the Chief Pilot; Maintenance; ARFF Chief; Gate Agent; and Passengers. We saved all paper work; photos; and contact information.An Airbus Pilot jump-seater was very helpful with event CRM. Possible failure factors included heavy weight; TOGA takeoff; and a warm day stressing the engine. In addition; APU had been on MEL for 8 days adding to engine fatigue and stress with ground air and cross-bleed starts; and it was the aircraft's first flight of the day (even with ample warm-up time). Following policies; procedures; flows; and checklists all while maintaining positive aircraft control in an un-rushed manner using all available resources and thorough CRM led to a safe resolution to the engine failure on takeoff. [I recommend] better and more prompt APU maintenance; and the use of non-TOGA flex takeoffs on longer runways in hot and heavy takeoffs situations.
Shortly after takeoff; during gear retraction; we noticed a loud thud or two. Initially; I thought it was a problem with landing gear retraction; since it started while the gear was still in transit. Shortly thereafter; the noise occurred again. A spike in engine temp was noted during the sounds; and the spike immediately disappeared. The EGT over-temp readings were happening too fast (and clearing so fast) that no ECAM message was triggered long enough to stay up. Once power on the #1 engine was reduced; the engine ran normally at idle. We requested priority handling and leveled off at 4;000 feet. ATC began vectoring us back for a visual approach to the longest runway; XXC. We requested ARFF to inspect the plane on landing. Flight attendants; passengers and Dispatch were advised of the situation and our intentions. All appropriate QRH procedures were complied with. Non-normal landing procedures were complied with. Overweight landing procedures and landing distance assessment were completed. A straight-out heading was requested and approved in the event of a missed. An uneventful approach and landing was conducted. After stopping on the runway; we requested ARFF to inspect the #1 engine for damage. No damage was noted and we continued to the gate. I'm not sure that this event was preventable. The only unusual thing about this aircraft was the deferral period for the APU. I think it had been deferred 8 days ago; which is quite a lot of external air start cycles and cross bleeds. Just speculation; but if this malfunction was associated in some way with a bleed air valve; the fact that the APU was deferred so long-and all the associated unusual starting procedures (perhaps external air starts) could have been a factor. It might be something to consider from a maintenance tracking perspective. I hear that we are seeing more inflight engine problems lately. I think APU deferrals should be as short as possible for a variety of reasons.I have a feeling that this event may have been associated with the APU deferral. I think emphasis should be put on deferring them for a shorter time and routing planes in need of APU work to a Maintenance facility sooner. In no case is a week deferral reasonable or necessary. (I don't think any troubleshooting had even been attempted to get the APU operating again.) TOGA Takeoff could have been another contributing factor; as we are asking a lot of the engines in hot weather.
A321 flight crew reported a possible compressor stall on the number 1 engine shortly after takeoff which resulted in a return to the departure airport.