Hi,
Originally posted by Meikleour:
I was current on the A330 at the time of that incident although not now - however, unless it has changed since, the QRH did indeed cover fuel leaks.
The problem was that the drill for a leak whose source could not be identified was for the crew to switch off the wing tank fuel pumps and see whether the engine flamed out! So you can imagine the crew`s feelings about doing this when way out over the ocean and at night. What has never been addressed however is, if the crew suspected malfunctioning computer readings, then why did they think it would be a `good idea` to open the fuel crossfeed. This action vastly increased the fuel loss rate yet they never seemed to pick up on that.
I didn’t understand the phrase in bold. May be the reason to turn off the fuel boost pumps is to isolate a fuel leak upstream the fuel spar valve (fuel LP valve). I guess the engine will shutdown at cruise altitude with fuel boost pumps off. Fuel gravity supply (suction feed) will likely not be available until the aircraft will descend to a certain altitude. In my humble opinion if there is a fuel leak (upstream or downstream the spar valve) the engine will be shutdown and the crossfeed valve will be opened to supply fuel to other engine. All corrections are welcome.
It will be nice and helpful is someone can post the fuel leak procedure because it will shed some light regarding this matter (Airbus, Boeing,...). Some state that there is no fuel leak procedure: does it mean that such procedure was not available in old aircraft? May be added later after Air Transat incident???
Feedback appreciated
Thanks
Regards