Air Canada A330 Engine Fire/Fuel Leak?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
Age: 42
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Eight Gun Fighter
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Western Approaches
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is now being reported as a fuel line break/separation after a repair the day before. No mention of fire, but of fuel loss. Crew noticed fuel qty loss 3,000 lb over what should have been used only a few minutes into flight.
Is this a repeat of the Air Transat misrigging or a new way to screw it up
Misrigging -- An action mistakenly performed by engineering staff
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: the blue planet
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Idlethrust,
No axe to grind of any kind. I don't appreciate those that in an attempt to raise their status lower others', so that they feel high and mighty in comparison. That's all.
It is unfortunate that your handle mimics your company status, but don't blame us for it mate.
No axe to grind of any kind. I don't appreciate those that in an attempt to raise their status lower others', so that they feel high and mighty in comparison. That's all.
It is unfortunate that your handle mimics your company status, but don't blame us for it mate.
Iconoclast
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The home of Dudley Dooright-Where the lead dog is the only one that gets a change of scenery.
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Which end is which?
To: RatherBeFlying
The Air Transat mechanic installed the fuel line backwards. However, this "misrigging as you call it" should have been impossible. Good design for Maintainability dictates that elements that could cause problems if installed backwards should be designed in such a way as to make the backwards installation impossible.
When the line was installed backwards the critical clearance between the fuel and hydraulic lines was compromised. There was no mention of the possibility of backward installation mentioned in the maintenance manual for the A-330 or, the RR Trent 700 engine maintenance manual. A similar problem occurred on the GE and P&W engines used on the A-330 and an AD was issued to check for proper clearance between critical lines.
Rolls Royce never issued a similar AD for their engine.
Shortly after the "Atlantic Glider" incident Air Transat took delivery of a brand new A-330 and they found that on one of the engines Rolls Royce had installed the same line backwards.
Is this a repeat of the Air Transat misrigging or a new way to screw it up
When the line was installed backwards the critical clearance between the fuel and hydraulic lines was compromised. There was no mention of the possibility of backward installation mentioned in the maintenance manual for the A-330 or, the RR Trent 700 engine maintenance manual. A similar problem occurred on the GE and P&W engines used on the A-330 and an AD was issued to check for proper clearance between critical lines.
Rolls Royce never issued a similar AD for their engine.
Shortly after the "Atlantic Glider" incident Air Transat took delivery of a brand new A-330 and they found that on one of the engines Rolls Royce had installed the same line backwards.
Lu, given the lack of guidance in the RR maintenance manual and the newly delivered engine with the fuel pipe installed backwards
I have been unduly harsh to Air Transat -- and Air Canada may have been led up a similar garden path if not the same one
I have been unduly harsh to Air Transat -- and Air Canada may have been led up a similar garden path if not the same one
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Backwards? I dont think so....
I would like to precise that the lines in effect in the Transat incident were not installed backwards.
The lines that came in contact were of different mod standard and thus the clearance between them was nil (once the flex line loosen to take back it's original shape)
I agree with the fact that when mods affect such critical parts, they should be "Murphy proof" or at least the IPC should point out CLEARLY that two part are not to be mixed.
The way the IPC points out that details today (and it's been like that since Chuck Taylor I suppose) is sometimes misleeding and complicated to the commun mechanic.
Having to go to the service bulletin books on a turn around is not a desired scenario even if you have all technical resources to support you (MCC or whatnot).
And I do confirm that Transat took delivery of a brand new aircraft (C-GPTS to name her) with RR Trent engine showing hard contact on lines at several places (in the vecinaty of the IDG for example for those who now what I mean...).
I dont understand why the Trent engine presents such flaws.
The RB-211-535 E4 was such a pleasure to work on and has such a good record, you would expect that the Trent would benifit of that succes story.
The lines that came in contact were of different mod standard and thus the clearance between them was nil (once the flex line loosen to take back it's original shape)
I agree with the fact that when mods affect such critical parts, they should be "Murphy proof" or at least the IPC should point out CLEARLY that two part are not to be mixed.
The way the IPC points out that details today (and it's been like that since Chuck Taylor I suppose) is sometimes misleeding and complicated to the commun mechanic.
Having to go to the service bulletin books on a turn around is not a desired scenario even if you have all technical resources to support you (MCC or whatnot).
And I do confirm that Transat took delivery of a brand new aircraft (C-GPTS to name her) with RR Trent engine showing hard contact on lines at several places (in the vecinaty of the IDG for example for those who now what I mean...).
I dont understand why the Trent engine presents such flaws.
The RB-211-535 E4 was such a pleasure to work on and has such a good record, you would expect that the Trent would benifit of that succes story.
Pilots' Pal
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: USA
Age: 63
Posts: 1,158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lu Zuckerman,
At the risk of seeming a pedant, regulatory authorities issue ADs, either unilaterally or on the basis of an Alert SB or SB from the TC holder. (SB = Service Bulletin; TC = Type Certificate)
At the risk of seeming a pedant, regulatory authorities issue ADs, either unilaterally or on the basis of an Alert SB or SB from the TC holder. (SB = Service Bulletin; TC = Type Certificate)
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: England
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Imagery Mentioned above
06 Nov 03:
The Air Canada Airbus 330-343 aircraft, registration C-GHKX, carrying 92 passengers had departed runway 26L at 14:23 PDT for Calgary when fuel was observed leaking from the right wing. With fuel venting at a high rate, the pilot declared an emergency and circled over the greater Vancouver area at approximately 1500 feet, before returning to YVR to land visually on runway 26 left at 2238Z. The aircraft taxied onto runway 12, with fuel continuing to vent. The aircraft was met by Airport Fire Fighting, who dispensed foam as a precautionary measure. Estimated fuel loss was approximately 3700 kg. Runway 26 left was closed for flushing and sweeping for two hours. There have been unconfirmed reports that fuel landed on vehicles as the aircraft approached the runway. Due to the fuel contamination on the runway, all arrivals and departures were routed to Runway 26 right. Runway 26 right is not normally used for departures due to noise abatement procedures.
HP Fuel Line on fuel-oil heat exchanger detached & crew landed back quickly after a 3700kg fuel loss.
Engine Model: RB211 TRENT 772B-60
The Air Canada Airbus 330-343 aircraft, registration C-GHKX, carrying 92 passengers had departed runway 26L at 14:23 PDT for Calgary when fuel was observed leaking from the right wing. With fuel venting at a high rate, the pilot declared an emergency and circled over the greater Vancouver area at approximately 1500 feet, before returning to YVR to land visually on runway 26 left at 2238Z. The aircraft taxied onto runway 12, with fuel continuing to vent. The aircraft was met by Airport Fire Fighting, who dispensed foam as a precautionary measure. Estimated fuel loss was approximately 3700 kg. Runway 26 left was closed for flushing and sweeping for two hours. There have been unconfirmed reports that fuel landed on vehicles as the aircraft approached the runway. Due to the fuel contamination on the runway, all arrivals and departures were routed to Runway 26 right. Runway 26 right is not normally used for departures due to noise abatement procedures.
HP Fuel Line on fuel-oil heat exchanger detached & crew landed back quickly after a 3700kg fuel loss.
Engine Model: RB211 TRENT 772B-60
