Apparently an EK 330 had a double engine failure on the runway during departure from Sanaa, Yemen.

Dont know much else. This happened a couple of days ago it seems.

anyone....

Ek961/962 15th of Oct

According to the system A/c aog, crew layed overnight in sanaa

Not sure what happened eng failure or not

As they say "I think we should be told" sheesh :oh:

It happened to the other airline down the road too, 4 years back into Dhaka. That was with the GE CF6 engines A330 (loan aircraft), on descent, in rain and it went very quiet for a short while! No more GE CF6 engines, only RR.

Even the rain couldn't cool the sweat of the cockpit crew!!!

It happened to Ci as well.

China Airlines A330 Both GE Engine Shut Down — Civil Aviation Forum | Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/3482373/)

And Qatar

GE investigates double CF6-80 flame-out on Qatar A330-200 into Shanghai, believed to be type's first-13/06/2006-Los Angeles-Flight International (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2006/06/13/207165/ge-investigates-double-cf6-80-flame-out-on-qatar-a330-200-into-shanghai-believed-to-be-types.html)

These are RR Trent engines

any confirmation that the thread title actually happened and that anything exciting actually happened:confused:

Both engines cutting out un-commanded on a twin = WIDE EYED MOMENT , no matter who made those engines.

On the up side, it makes the stop/go decision really easy! :}

These are RR Trent engines


Then this is politely known as "dual roll back".

Amazing how one can change the name, as not to influence the world news of such a saga!

Don't want to start a A vs B argument, but this came to mind...

A couple of years ago there were also some occurences of dual thrust roll back during take off on GE powered 777's resulting in this emergency airworthiness directive (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAD.nsf/0/0dd44fe2beb1f516862571f9006b5dad/$FILE/2006-20-51.pdf)

Okay, totally different engine (GE90 vs CF6) but still.
The problem on the 777 was caused by a FADEC software anomaly...

Given that aircraft was on ground after the event, data recorders read and pilot statements provided, please wait the investigation report.

Given the circumstances, the reference to past cases involving GE engines seem irrelevant.

..Okay, totally different engine (GE90 vs CF6) but still.
The problem on the 777 was caused by a FADEC software anomaly...

Given that aircraft was on ground after the event, data recorders read and pilot statements provided, please wait the investigation report.

Given the circumstances, the reference to past cases involving GE engines seem irrelevant.
??

How so?

Since the issue seems to indicate in both cases software issues - on aircraft increasingly governed in all aspects by software?

What makes you think there was any FADEC fault?

errr.....both engines stopped without a command to do so!

I doubt that they ran out of fuel as they were taxiing for takeoff!

The incident did happen. The cause is well known by Airbus and only happens under very specific conditions at high altitude airports (Saana approx 7,500') and a very low power setting at very low speeds.

The root cause is the N1 tip clearance with the inner engine casing.

Just another problem to add to the list of this beleaguered aircraft.

The catastrophic failure of AirFrance flight 447 A-330 was the one prior.

You may find this - "interesting"
France - AF 447 - Foreign Correspondent - ABC (http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/content/2009/s2725746.htm)
video link below presenter pic on left.

FLYBOY

The airbus has a good safety record! the equal to most other jets of a similar size, you make it sound the the aircraft is a death trap... take you drivel elsewhere

So who manufactures the Pitot tubes?? At 90K US a pop (???) I hope it aint Happy Chrysanthenum Engineering Beijing.....more than just Airbus vulnerable then......:uhoh:

There is no doubt, what happened over the Atlantic is a still Mystery, however air accidents have and will always continue to happen. Unfortunately they are very infamous in the media because they sell. And whats more unfortunate is that the media tends to focus on somewhat irrelevant facts in order to get these selling points across. In this particular clip, there is enough of a media budget to send the reporter half way across the globe, yet he makes inaccurate comments like saying that the pitot tube measures the outside air pressure! IT DOES NOT!

Now that the 777 is acting up a little, it's fair to say that virtually all airliners in operation have had their teething problems. It is grossly unfair to say that the A330 is an inferior aircraft. Flyboy please justify your claims with a little more than just statistics...

Fart Master

The incident did happen. The cause is well known by Airbus and only happens under very specific conditions at high altitude airports (Saana approx 7,500') and a very low power setting at very low speeds.

The root cause is the N1 tip clearance with the inner engine casing.



Thanks for that at least some clarity about the event.

What possible safety implications does this have if the event is only on-the-ground at very low power?

Flyboy737800,

I agree with Boeing, Boeing - please take your bias somewhere else.

The alleged incident is an engine issue - and with basically similar (though not identical) engines used by both manufacturers present in that market, the industry needs to understand what has allegedly happened and learn how to prevent it happening again. Just like the BA 777 at LHR.

If Fart Master is correct, maybe we already know.

And BTW. the name on the plane is A330, not A-330.

Fliegenmong,

If you'd read the AF447 thread you'd know it's a customer choice between a couple of small, insignificant suppliers called Goodrich and Thales. But what's that got to do with this alleged incident?

Saman

Lucky they didn't hit a school/orphanage/convent - ahhh no, wrong part of the world - on the runway:ok:

Flyboy737800,

I agree with Boeing, Boeing - please take your bias somewhere else.

The alleged incident is an engine issue - and with basically similar (though not identical) engines used by both manufacturers present in that market, the industry needs to understand what has allegedly happened and learn how to prevent it happening again. Just like the BA 777 at LHR.

If Fart Master is correct, maybe we already know.

And BTW. the name on the plane is A330, not A-330.

Fliegenmong,

If you'd read the AF447 thread you'd know it's a customer choice between a couple of small, insignificant suppliers called Goodrich and Thales. But what's that got to do with this alleged incident?

Saman

Sarmans public profile -

Location:
Europe

Occupation:
Technical marketing

LOL :D Just another Airbus stooge from marketing, this time :rolleyes:

What possible safety implications does this have if the event is only on-the-ground at very low power?

I think you were being sarcatic, but for the uninitiated:

Scenario:
Contaminated runway, full power take off and one goes to full power and the other rolls back.

Unless you are very, very quick, you aren't staying on the tarmac. Not good for you, the airline or the engine manufacturer. Don't forget that you already have about 50% N1 on each engine. The good one will accelerate pretty quickly, especially to TOGA, and the other will start to accelerate, then "fail" and trigger the ECAM. Add in the reaction time and it's not a good scenario.

It's something we teach in the sim during conversion, and even on a wet runway it can be pretty exciting :eek:

helen-damnation

I think you were being sarcatic, but for the uninitiated:

Scenario:
Contaminated runway, full power take off and one goes to full power and the other rolls back.

Unless you are very, very quick, you aren't staying on the tarmac. Not good for you, the airline or the engine manufacturer. Don't forget that you already have about 50% N1 on each engine. The good one will accelerate pretty quickly, especially to TOGA, and the other will start to accelerate, then "fail" and trigger the ECAM. Add in the reaction time and it's not a good scenario.

It's something we teach in the sim during conversion, and even on a wet runway it can be pretty exciting

My question was one of my few where I framed it under a another posters name, feeling that he must have had a close knowledge of the failure condition and possibly could share with us what this specific failure condition means to aircraft operation.

Your answer strikes me as a what-if opinion and may not be related to the actual facts of the failure condition, to wit, your assumptions of N1 percent and power conditions at the time.

You might be correct but I'm looking for confirmation. My take is that the aircraft is controlable at low speeds with average pilot skills via tiller and/or nose wheel control for split power conditions on the runway as long as the power differences are not greater than a single engine out.

Perhaps the conditions were somehow different than this if anybody has access to the actual facts.

The incident did happen. The cause is well known by Airbus and only happens under very specific conditions at high altitude airports (Saana approx 7,500') and a very low power setting at very low speeds.

The root cause is the N1 tip clearance with the inner engine casing.


Actually it is N3 (HP Compressor inlet) tip clearance, and at high power settings. The cause is not well known, otherwise there would be already an AD.

And Helen and Lomapeso, The RR engine on a A330 is EPR controlled , due to 3 spools , not via N1.

rgds

Whatever the technical augment gentlemen, a Supposed Stare of the Art aircraft SHOULD NOT suffer a DOUBLE ENGINE FAILURE :(

FlyBoy737800

Now trying to hi-jack this thread I see, do you remember the 777 double engine rollback on finals at Heathrow?

What is your problem with the A330 and as you seem to be posting other posters qualifications on other threads, what are yours in the context of being an "expert" on the A330.:ugh:

h3dxb

You're correct, it's 1.1 EPR as pre-selected before take off thrust. It will give a similar N1 figure though.

lompaseo

The SOP is the same in all weather conditions (unless ice-shedding), with regard to setting EPR/N1. I don't know the conditions on the day of this incident, but if both rolled back at the same or similar time, I assume there wouldn't be any major handling problem as there would be little asymetric thrust.

aircraft is controlable at low speeds with average pilot skills via tiller and/or nose wheel control for split power conditions on the runway as long as the power differences are not greater than a single engine out
Presumably it would have to be, as it would not be certified/authorised otherwise. My point was that, at low speed and therefore with little/no fin effect, the single engine case can be very nasty and it would be easy to be caught out.

Rgds,
H-D

Whatever the technical augment gentlemen, a Supposed Stare of the Art aircraft SHOULD NOT suffer a DOUBLE ENGINE FAILURE

A certain BA 777 comes to mind....oh sorry FlyBoy, I forgot Boeing never have failures... :mad: :ugh:

But, maybe you'd like to tell us how an engine failure (or any other component for that matter) means that any given aircraft is then "unsafe"...

I guess by your logic that my E145 is a dangerous aircraft because a few years ago we had airconditioning pack failure resulting in the cabin not pressurising sufficiently during climb....?

fc101
E145driver

Flyboy,

Thank you so much re-posting my post in its entirety.

But why? I missed your point. And you published my profile - readily available to all and sundry.

Inspired.

But please don't call me, or anyone else, a 'stooge' - that might cause offence

Feel free to re-post this post if you feel it helps move aviation safety forward.

Saman

lomapaseo;
My take is that the aircraft is controlable at low speeds with average pilot skills via tiller and/or nose wheel control for split power conditions on the runway as long as the power differences are not greater than a single engine out.
If I may, it isn't clear what you mean by the italicized phrase because it refers to a state and not an amount or rate.

Low-thrust, single engine taxi is a routine operation and on bare-and-dry surfaces, presents no control problems at idle to break-away thrust; there is a weight limitation of course, to limit required thrust in ramp areas. Single engine taxi is normally not done under contaminated-surface conditions at any weight.

Sudden thrust loss case: (which is where the phrase, "Single engine out" confuses),
The situation to which Helen referred is when the engines are at takeoff thrust, (either FLEX or TOGA) and he is correct; the aircraft is not directionally controllable under any circumstances with a sudden loss of thrust from one engine.

Thrust must be reduced immediately on the other engine otherwise the aircraft it will take a rapid swing towards the dead engine and quite possible leave the runway. This scenario is reviewed in the simulator as a matter of course.

Minor thrust loss is not a problem, (but below 80kts would be a cause for a rejected takeoff).

I suspect the 737, 767 & 777 will have the same characteristics. Tail-mounted engine configurations would not have this characteristic.

PJ2

Low-thrust, single engine taxi is a routine operation and on bare-and-dry surfaces, presents no control problems at idle to break-away thrust; there is a weight limitation of course, to limit required thrust in ramp areas. Single engine taxi is normally not done under contaminated-surface conditions at any weight.

Sudden thrust loss case: (which is where the phrase, "Single engine out" confuses),
The situation to which Helen referred is when the engines are at takeoff thrust, (either FLEX or TOGA) and he is correct; the aircraft is not directionally controllable under any circumstances with a sudden loss of thrust from one engine.

Thrust must be reduced immediately on the other engine otherwise the aircraft it will take a rapid swing towards the dead engine and quite possible leave the runway. This scenario is reviewed in the simulator as a matter of course.

Minor thrust loss is not a problem, (but below 80kts would be a cause for a rejected takeoff).

I suspect the 737, 767 & 777 will have the same characteristics. Tail-mounted engine configurations would not have this characteristic.

Sorry that my words might have confused.

But I would like to respond to your words as well.

First a clarification:

I am not convinced of the facts of the subject event and to comment further on them would only add more confusion as they are changed by multiple posters.

My question relating to the safety aspects of the reported event are highly dependant on the failure circumstances as facts.

However regarding your coments above about high power vs low power, rate changes, level of power changes etc.

For non-recoverable surge events associated with the complete breakdown of the engine cycle you can expect the rate change from full thrust to essentialy zero thrust to be in the range of 1-2 secs. However this has to be taken into context with the effect on the mass of the aircraft relative to both it's speed change, yaw change and reactionary changes like roll (once airborne)

On the ground where speed, pitch and roll are not overt, the initial yaw rate change is felt mostly as a shock (spilling any drinks if somebody has one in their hand). The yaw rate change after the initial shock has been demonstrated thousands of time that it can be managed by rudder over the period of time to prevent most pilots from leaving the runway sides.

I grant you that at Vr and above the roll rate gets into the act but also should be manageable by trained rudder skills

This leaves only a minute sub-set of possible occurences where control may not be gained in a timely manner and that is where the effective thrust loss is beyond the capability of the nose wheel steering and/or rudder for a period of time greater than several seconds.

I'll continue to watch the thread for confirmation of what power level and flight conditions were present for the subject of the thread title.

lomapaseo;
This leaves only a minute sub-set of possible occurences where control may not be gained in a timely manner and that is where the effective thrust loss is beyond the capability of the nose wheel steering and/or rudder for a period of time greater than several seconds.
Fully concur. Well analyzed - thanks for your response.

To your point regarding the "shock and yaw"...(sorry)...again concur. In the sim, the engine failure below about 80kts is controllable if one is quick with the thrust levers and the rudder and providing the runway is bare and dry. For the 320/330, over-controlling is highly possible with the tiny tiller and the large deflections available with small movements below 100kts - above 100kts, rudder pedal and tiller control disconnect, leaving all directtional control with the rudder only. Not sure with the 767 "tiller" arrangement - did not fly it in the left seat.

Yes - awaiting the facts with these points in mind.

Helen-damnation and PJ2 are correct...

But, some of the posts are possibly a bit imprecise...or maybe unclear...
Sorry for the thread drift...but...

Just to ensure we are all on the same page...

1. VMCA is the minimum airspeed when airborne that it is possible to control the aircraft with an engine in-op and the other engine(s) at max thrust.

2. VMCG is the minimum airspeed when on the ground that it is possible to control the aircraft with an engine in-op and the other engine(s) at max thrust.

VMCA for a typical airliner is about 120-130 KIAS. VMCG for a typical airliner is about 110-125 KIAS.

So, by definition, if an engine completely fails on take-off while still on the ground and below VMCG with the remaining engines at max thrust, the aircraft will become uncontrollable unless the good engine(s) is/are immediately throttled back.

At speeds below about 60 KIAS (where there is very little aerodynamic control), an engine failure WILL result in the aircraft leaving the runway within about 3 seconds (maximum)...unless the remaining engines are quickly reduced to idle.

Qatar Airways sufferred more engines failures than any other airlines in a matter of 5 months. one of them a double engine lame out into HKG at fl 200 in convective weather.

I don't have the spec. But the N1 clearance tip to shell is difficult to see, and my eyes are fine. I've been impressed with that trait, never thought it a concern.

yes it is a death trap aircraft...Complicated and a performance stresser when these single and continuous chimes sound together in a critical phase in bad weather with a new non rated pilot operating it's autoflight system..yes boeing even if I have more than 10000 (ten thousand) hrs command on fbw a/c.:confused:

sorry to drag this up again, I know the thread has moved on but Flyboy - what are you on about??

Just another problem to add to the list of this beleaguered aircraft.

The catastrophic failure of AirFrance flight 447 A-330 was the one prior.

You mention two events in the long history of an aircraft, one was hugely unfortunate - the other, a probable non event.

Need we remind you of the 73's interesting past?

And Flyboy doesn't even get his numbers right.
In post #57 in thread "A330 safety beatup on SUNDAY", he puts the number of fatal A330 accidents at 0.53/million flight hours, giving the website he took this from.
As there has been only 1 occurence in commercial operations, this would mean the wordwide fleet of A330s, flying since 1992, would have accumulated only around 2 million flight hours; hardly likely.
I took the trouble to look at the numbers on the site and low and behold it's the number for the A300, the A330 is listed as unknown.
Great performance, Flyboy!

A330, A300, DC-3...All the same thing really! Forgive him he doesn't know the difference.

despite of all the speculation, I'm wondering that with a dual inflight shutdown, there is no ETOPS downgrading in EK and/or for RR engines..........

good customer relationship ?? :eek:

despite of all the speculation, I'm wondering that with a dual inflight shutdown, there is no ETOPS downgrading in EK and/or for RR engines..........

Not inflight.....It was on application of T/O thrust at the Take off point.

Correct Kumul - not IFSD:ok:

Gents

In CAR PART 1 for the UAE , Flight is still the definition for : means the total time from the moment an aeroplane first moves for the purpose of taking-off until it comes to rest at the end of the flight.

Ready to get corrected, so in my eyes the taxiing to TO-point is supposed to be named as flight (operating under own power) . Anyhow it is so silent around the dual engine failure.......

h3dxb, you are correct but in this context, ie IFSD, I think the definition of In Flight is slightly different.:ok:

Coming a bit late, but here is some data on A330/A340-200/300 (two A/C but the same design).
At end Aug 2009, the two fleets have accumulated the following flight hours and take offs :

A342/A343 : 11.600.000 flight hours and 1.700.000 take offs
A330 : 14.100.000 flight hours and 3.500.000 take offs

Let's our 737 flying ace make the computations ...

Best not to award flyboy any more attention since clearly his only motivation, aside from wasting everyone's time, is to provoke.