View Full Version : Another A330 incident for SriLankan

19th Apr 2001, 18:28
"A SriLankan Airlines Airbus A330 from the Maldives made an emergency landing after an engine malfunctioned in flight on Wednesday, officials said.

One of the plane's two engines had to be shut down, said Manuela Motha, a spokeswoman for SriLankan, the national carrier.

None of the 153 passengers on board was hurt, she said.

It was the fourth reported emergency since February for the airline, which is run jointly by the Sri Lankan government and Dubai-based airline Emirates.

On April 11, 145 passengers made an emergency evacuation from an A330 aircraft bound for Frankfurt, Germany after smoke appeared in the cabin. One injured passenger died in hospital later, while a woman suffered a miscarriage and two others were injured.

An Airbus A320 bound for Dhaka, Bangladesh, returned to the Sri Lankan capital, Colombo, shortly after takeoff on February 21, due to a malfunctioning engine.

On February 12, an Airbus A340 returned to Colombo after being in the air for 5 1/2 hours. Airport officials said a wheel had burst on takeoff.

There were no injuries in either incident, the airline said."

Guess Emirates must be getting a little peeved!

19th Apr 2001, 20:51
Worked for UL for 5 years in the early 90's on the TriStar. At that time UL had the highest daily utilization of any L10 operator, averaging 15 hours per day. Their dispatch rate was on the order of 98.5% as well. Wonder if the learning curve for the new "high tech" equipment is a bit steeper than they thought?

The Guvnor
19th Apr 2001, 21:59
411A - I'd say it's more like the L1011 is a better built and more reliable aircraft than the A330! :) :) :)

20th Apr 2001, 05:50
Of course it is, made in America (with proper RR engines, of course).

20th Apr 2001, 10:43
Ever driven an American car, 411A? Or bought American-made appliances, or maybe an American hi-fi? Their technology is light-years behind Europe and Japan. (Granted the Boeing people are slowly catching up)

20th Apr 2001, 11:04
Yea, but at least is reliable and it works, unlike the A320 that ah...descended into the trees on a Demo flight. Not a very pretty picture.

20th Apr 2001, 12:50
Well done Guvnor & 411A,you've managed to hijack another thread with some Euro/US slagging.

20th Apr 2001, 17:06
Hijacked...I think not. Lets face facts, although the A330/A340 is a very advanced aircraft, it is best suited for more advanced carriers than UL. When UL acquired the TriStars in 1979, it had very good technical support from Air Canada. Even with help from EK, UL has a difficult time with this aircraft. The tech support from AirBus to smaller less advanced carriers is not all that good, to say nothing of the cost of spares.

Anti Skid On
20th Apr 2001, 17:48
The A320 was flown into the trees as the commander attempted to override the FMC which was trying to avert the disaster. If he had flown it within the performance envelope it would still be flying today!

20th Apr 2001, 20:13
Nonsense! The aircraft was flying in violation of the agreed profile. If it would have been a B737-300 for example, it would still be flying today.

21st Apr 2001, 02:05
as an a 330 driver,the important bit of information,"ie" what type of engine is" missing,
the ones on my machine ,when maintained proper work great...

21st Apr 2001, 20:26
"Proper" maintenance is the operative term.
UL had no trouble with the hammer and tong style of maintenance with the TriStars, it is/was a tough old bird. Don't think that style works with the AirBus equipment.

21st Apr 2001, 22:08
411A states "The aircraft was flying in violation of the agreed profile. If it would have been a B737-300 ..it would still be flying today".

Typical bollox from a yank who has never flown an airbus.

22nd Apr 2001, 06:39
.....and have no desire to do so. I'm sure they are a fine bit of engineering, just not suited to carriers with poor technical support.

22nd Apr 2001, 09:23
I my self am a european. Have a european CAA commersial licence. Have done some hour building in the US and was suprised at the number of Airbus aircraft flying for US carriers. For the record I prefer Boeing over Airbus.

Nothing to see here, just making use of the internet!

22nd Apr 2001, 11:45
As far as I know Airlanka have been flying the A 340 and the 320 for years. Have seen them in Colombo for the past decade at least.

Maybe it is a shortage of personnell, cost cutting or some other more familiar reason? There is no need to blame it one nation's perceived inability to maintain the 330.

22nd Apr 2001, 11:59
The first AirBus was delivered to UL in late 1994. Tech support from AirBus Industrie was not good at all which is the main reason they are still having problems. Also they did not order the new operators spares package which didn't help either. The only reason UL ordered AirBus aircraft in the first place was the rather large ah....commissions paid to some of the directors, reported in the local press at some length.

22nd Apr 2001, 13:31
My purpose in raising this thread was to stimulate some discussion as to relative responsibility for ensuring that an airline was "safe". Unfortunately it has been sidetracked by the discussion on relative merits of Boeing v Airbus, which I'm sure has been covered to death on other threads!

Some questions. Are SriLankan just unlucky? I am not sure of their current fleet, their Internet site talks about having 12 Airbus aircraft - 340(4), 330(6), and 320(2), but then goes on to talk about introducing 9 x 330s between Oct '99 and Dec '00. Are 4 incidents in three months excessive for a fleet this size? When and how would a situation arise for any country to deny SriLankan landing rights, if they were concerned about the levels of maintenance ?

Since Emirates owns 40% and, I believe, has entered into a 10 year deal to "manage" the airline, does that make them 40%, or 100% liable for the maintenance? What is the regulatory authority involved? Is SriLankan under the control of Dubai or Sri Lankan authorities, or both?

Just a few thoughts.

22nd Apr 2001, 16:07
newsw, I don't know about lucky or unlucky, but Air Mauritius has had 4 inflight turnbacks in a 4-week period, 3 in one week! That sounds pretty 'unlucky'!! The fact that maintenence is of a low standard and a couple of the incidents were coupled to outstanding MEL items are probably of some significance. All on Airbus A340. The whole fleet is only 5 aircraft!

26th Apr 2001, 16:50
Altough it's a pitty these things happen.

I hope the management of the concerned airlines appreciate what a good crew is worth.

And for the record maybe they will have become aware of what ETOPS really means.

Smooth Trimmer