PDA

View Full Version : Qatar Airways A330 Dual Engine Flameout


320DRIVER
5th Jun 2006, 09:19
Another website http://www.jacdec.de reports the following.
The funny thing :ooh: is that it quotes PPRUNE as the source. Is something amiss?
-----

DATE: 01.06.2006
LOCAL TIME: evening
LOCATION: Shanghai-Intl AP (ZSPD)
COUNTRY: China
AIRLINE: Qatar AW
TYPE: Airbus A330-202
REGISTRATION: A7-ACJ
C/N: 746
AGE: 0 y + 1 m
OPERATION: ISP
FLIGHT No.: -
FROM: Shanghai
TO: Doha VIA: -
OCCUPANTS: PAX: - CREW: -
FATALITIES: PAX: 0 CREW: 0 OTHER: 0
INJURIES: PAX: 0 CREW: 0 OTHER: 0
DAMAGE TO AIRCRAFT: minor / none
After take off, the aircraft suffered a double engine flameout due to unknown reasons. However the pilots managed to restart both engines and returned safely to Shanghai.
SOURCE(S): PPRuNe

Joetom
5th Jun 2006, 19:15
Must be some good info on a twin that has both engines shut down during flight, the previous post mentions after take off, I wonder how long after T/O they shut down.???

I remember in the mid/late 80s, a few 757/767s had dual shut downs during flight, think reason was pilots using fuel cock instead off EEC switches during a drill for EEC failure, think Boeing view was just a crew problem.

However after a 757 or 767 departing SFO(i think) switched em off at 2500ft, FAA moved quick, temp Mod actioned to have a little plastic or wood block fitted between fuel cocks(not poss to operate both fuel cocks with one hand now) perm Mod to move the EEC buttons away from the fuel cocks.

I would like to hear the CVR from the SFO event, I can guess a few words that may of got a mention that day.!!!!!!!!!!!!

Any info on this 330 would be good.!!!???

javelin
5th Jun 2006, 22:26
On 1 June 2006 an A330-200 aircraft, equipped with GE CF6-80E1 engines, experienced a dual engine flame out during descent around flight level 200. Both engines quickly recovered and a safe landing was performed.

The investigation into this event is being led by the Investigation Authorities with assistance from Airbus. The investigation is in its early stages. An update will be provided when additional information is available and agreed for dispatch by the Investigation Authorities.

Wango Z Tango
6th Jun 2006, 17:19
engines were re-lite 2 minutes after initial flame out due to heavy water ingestion.. ( monsoon type rains )

thanx to the auto igintion system of the aircraft and ability to auto start.

good machine the 330.. very well protected.

vapilot2004
6th Jun 2006, 23:31
The GE engines on this 330 were not protected at all from this event - apparently they did indeed flameout. The amount of water ingestion must have been huge (igniters ON - Well beyond any test scenario) or (more likely) no ignition was commanded ON by the aircraft systems.

As I understand it, both the Pratt and GE equipped A330s have new-gen FADECs. For the Pratt equipped A330, there are 5 conditions that will trigger the igniters other than engine start:

Anti-Ice ON
In-Flight Flame-Out
In-Flight Surge
TO/GA/Flex Mode
Approach Idle

Standard OPS would require continuous ignition in this kind of weather condition. Since the A330 has no direct igniter controls, is this accomplished by selecting engine Anti-Ice ON ?

And while idle is not the prudent power setting for heavy precip, would not flight idle automatically power the igniters on this aircraft ?

Wango Z Tango
7th Jun 2006, 04:16
well.. your right about some of the ignition information.. as for Approach idle.. the ignition will only come on when you have selected flap to position 3 or 4.. on GE and all new 330 aircraft ( as this one was only 2 weeks since delivery ) wing anti-ice does NOT give auto ignition system any more.. althought the ignition can be selected manually..
so far it is assumed that there might have been a failure in the ignition system in general, but that does not explain the quick re-light ( 1 minute for the first engine)

airbus sent a team to investigate.

GANKER
7th Jun 2006, 05:43
you can simply put the ignition on by selecting the switch to IGNITION:rolleyes:

Trash Hauler
7th Jun 2006, 10:42
Heard from an A330 driver that they are now advised to set packs to high at top of descent. This advice came out in the last few days which I suspect is related to the event. Are these engines susceptible to compressor stall at low power during descent?

golfyankeesierra
7th Jun 2006, 11:22
so far it is assumed that there might have been a failure in the ignition system in general, but that does not explain the quick re-light ( 1 minute for the first engine)

Where does your info come from?
A jet engine has a continous combustion, so it doesnot need ignition (other than for start or as protection). So how can it fail when it is not even on?
The relight(s) only illustrates that the ignition system worked perfect!

Very interested in the outcome!!

lomapaseo
7th Jun 2006, 14:47
Where does your info come from?
A jet engine has a continous combustion, so it doesnot need ignition (other than for start or as protection). So how can it fail when it is not even on?
The relight(s) only illustrates that the ignition system worked perfect!
Very interested in the outcome!!

Agree

I am also very interested as to the correlation between the inflight powersetting conditions (at idle) when they entered the precip vs the engine certification conditions in severe weather. If indeed this is a weather foul-up event

Feather #3
7th Jun 2006, 23:03
You may find that this is a carry-on from the same problem on GE equipped B744's with the same suggested fix. W/x conditions are prescribed for the B744 selection of packs, etc., but in a twin [despite 2 being as good as 3 or 4?] it's safer to do it all the time.

G'day ;)

vapilot2004
8th Jun 2006, 03:39
you can simply put the ignition on by selecting the switch to IGNITION

Ganker, do you mean that Start switch on the overhead, set it to Start/Ignition, then ? :O

That switch will spring back on ya in another type I am more familiar with. :}

I think they will find that it was either buckets of rain beyond anything GE planned for (and certified) or - more likely - there was no ignition being commanded on for whatever reason or - unlikely - the engines were still at idle.

Joetom
9th Jun 2006, 11:31
Am still looking for the first posts on this item, anyone know where they be.
.
Still not much info after 8 days, anyone got the info.???

FlightDetent
9th Jun 2006, 11:33
Probably not as there is no overhead switch on the bus - well, pack hi flow is, of course. There is combined crank/norm/ignition-or-start switch on the central pedestal and it is not spring loaded in any way.

FD
(the un-real)

vapilot2004
9th Jun 2006, 19:18
Probably not as there is no overhead switch on the bus - well, pack hi flow is, of course. There is combined crank/norm/ignition-or-start switch on the central pedestal and it is not spring loaded in any way.



Unlike some machinery I am more familiar with - with a Start switch that is sometimes solenoid held for a bit. The overhead reference was also my attempt at some small (perhaps very) humor. :}

Variety must surely be the spice of life - and I do need to get around a bit more.

Wodrick
10th Jun 2006, 07:48
Received Tonight

FROM : AIRBUS CUSTOMER SERVICES TOULOUSE

TO : ALL A330 OPERATORS

OPERATORS INFORMATION TELEX - OPERATORS INFORMATION TELEX
AND
FLIGHT OPERATIONS TELEX - FLIGHT OPERATIONS TELEX



TO: ALL A330 OPERATORS

SUBJECT: ATA 72 - A330 DUAL ENGINE FLAME OUT

OUR REF: SE 999.0069/JS dated 09 JUNE 2006

CLASSIFICATION: INCIDENT - ADVICE (FLIGHT OPERATIONS)

REFERENCE
- OIT SE 999.0067/06/JS dated 02 JUNE 2006

1. PURPOSE

The purpose of OIT/FOT is to provide latest update and to provide operational
recommendations on the dual engine flame out event reported through
OIT ref. SE 999.0067/06/JS dated 02 JUNE 2006.

2. EVENT DESCRIPTION

On 1 June 2006 an A330-200 aircraft, equipped with General Electric (GE) CF6-80E1
engines, experienced a dual engine flame out during descent around flight level 200.
Both engines quickly recovered and a safe landing was performed.

3. INVESTIGATION STATUS

The investigation into this event is led by the Investigation Authorities with assistance from
Airbus. The investigation is still in its early stages, however, DFDR preliminary analysis has
shown that:
- During descent, while engines started to accelerate for aircraft altitude capture, both engines
flamed out simultaneously.
- Both engines automatically relit after flame out, and recovered within approximately 45 seconds.
- Engine Anti Ice had been selected ON during the descent, and Wing Anti Ice had been
selected ON shortly prior to the event.
- Aircraft systems behavior was normal including automatic RAT extension.

Boroscope inspections have been performed on both engines without significant findings.

Based on the above, the initial Airbus/GE view is that this event is similar to other power loss
events at altitudes above 10 000 ft attributed to inclement weather as experienced on CF6-80
engines installed on various aircraft types.

The aircraft returned to service on 7 June 06.

4. OPERATIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS

Waiting for final investigation results, in order to increase the fuel/air ratio in the engine so as
to mitigate the possibility of experiencing an engine flame out, the following provisional
procedure is recommended:

? If inclement weather/icing conditions are expected at any time during descent or if convective activity is identified by the weather radar in the vicinity of the aircraft flight path:


At top of descent:

- ENG ANTI ICE__ON
- WING ANTI ICE_..ON
- PACK FLOW___HI

Below 10000 feet :
Resume normal anti ice and pack flow operation according to weather conditions.

Note that the fuel consumption and the idle thrust will slightly increase when selecting ENG ANTI ICE_ON, WING ANTI ICE_ON, and PACK FLOW_HI.

Final operational recommendations will be implemented in the FCOM/QRH via OEB or TR.


5. FOLLOW-UP PLAN
An update will be provided by 16 June 06.

320DRIVER
10th Jun 2006, 11:19
Some good info starting to come out.

My thoughts: The now confirmed dual flame-out most probably was due to some external factor. These engines are manufactured to such a degree of precision that their performance, and hence response to external factors, would be identical.

An example of this amazing precision is noting that with two (or more :) ) new engines, such as installed on this aircraft (1 month old), the fuel used for both engines, even after long flights will be the same to the nearest KGs, at the most.

What may have happened is that the engines encountered a particular condition e.g. quantity of water ingestion, at a specific OAT, at a specific power output and direction (i.e. decel/acel), a specific aircraft speed, specific density ALT etc. that could not be handled by the engines.

The incident happened close to an airport, (my assumption since they were in descent), so probably the investigators could even have ground Doppler WX radar records of the event day to establish what the rainfall intensity was at the time.

The fix could be something simple as a FADEC 'tweak' to take into account such conditions and more stringent operational recommendations re: flying in inclement weather.

Well done to Airbus and GE for producing an airframe/engine combination that recovered brilliantly from what could have been a potentially disastrous scenario and not forgetting the crew, who handled it in a way as not to make headline news! Good stuff :ok:

lomapaseo
10th Jun 2006, 14:16
from 320DRIVER These engines are manufactured to such a degree of precision that their........performance,

My immediate thoughts was to replace the word performance above with the word failure

Not withstanding the directness of Airbus in illustrating the probable cause and temporary corrective action, I am disturbed that a known problem has migrated from historical service experience into brand new engines on a brand new aircraft. Certainly not very comforting that anybody out there has consulted a lessons learned notebook.

Where are the regulators in all this?

J.O.
10th Jun 2006, 14:21
Dump enough water into any fire (including a turbofan), and it will go out. How would you propose the regulators handle this? Prohibit flying in rain?

lomapaseo
10th Jun 2006, 14:45
Dump enough water into any fire (including a turbofan), and it will go out. How would you propose the regulators handle this? Prohibit flying in rain?


By ensuring that the product can endure an encounter with severe weather to provide freedom from flame out up to no more than one event in 100 million hours.

The flip side of this, is how often are you willing to have a multiple engine flame out when flying in rain of unknown quantity?

320DRIVER
10th Jun 2006, 15:56
lomapaseo, your concerns are indeed valid but the regulators/manufacturers will never be able to foresee every scenario at the planning phase. It will work 99.9999% of the time. On a positive note, the safety net in place in this case has worked to perfection.

The data collected will no doubt further improve the system.

Nonetheless, I think the guys at GE should at least revisit the wording on their website ;)

GE was able to bring together the newest technology to provide the market with an engine with the lowest weight, lowest fuel burn, proven stall free operation, and by far most reliable to enable operators to maximize the potential of the A330

From... http://www.geae.com/engines/commercial/cf6/cf6-80e1.html

Alty
10th Jun 2006, 19:28
320Driver - I find your praise of Airbus and GE quite interesting in what might otherwise be cause for concern in the community. Since this problem is apparently (per the recent operator letter and 747 comments above) shared with other CF6-80 engines, perhaps Airbus could have released this recommendation to the A330 fleet earlier, instead of waiting for an event to happen? That event turned out to be a two-engine flameout on a two-engine airplane. If you eventually fly widebodies, would you be comfortable in assuming that these engines will always restart quickly after a flameout? Or would you prefer to prevent the flameouts from happending in the first place?
Also, do you have additional information to share about the event? The event was reported as two flameouts, not stalls. Even after this event, the engines may in fact operate free of stalls.

320DRIVER
10th Jun 2006, 22:55
Alty, the only information I have is that gained through PPRUNE. I get the point re: the difference between stall/flame-out, fiscal as it may be in the light-hearted context I wanted to convey in that part of the post.

I still think that both the airframe and engine manufacturer passed the test here. As I wrote in the previous post, no regulator nor designer can ever hope to forecast all the possible events that their product might encounter, be it through freak environmental events or crew mis-handling.

Yet, the crew/aircraft/engine combination recovered well and we have a new opportunity to learn without the dire task of counting bodies.

Could Airbus have advised about this type of event beforehand knowing the history of the 747-based CF-6? Maybe... but again it is not an identical engine in all respects, so it may not have been an obvious choice as you seem to imply. After all, we have the benefit of hindsight, which as the saying goes, is always 20/20 vision!

Joetom
11th Jun 2006, 08:46
Will be interesting to see how this event will effect ops with an air con pack inop or a HP air valve inop.
.
Still very strange that will all previous info on 767 and 747 with this engine type fitted this event occured.

Trash Hauler
11th Jun 2006, 09:11
Alty
For info: current GE powered A330s use CF6-80E1 not -80C2. Does that change the fact that the engines flamed out....nope......but the cause may not be the same as on the -80C2s.
TH

airbus320pilot
11th Jun 2006, 19:26
Received Tonight

FROM : AIRBUS CUSTOMER SERVICES TOULOUSE

TO : ALL A330 OPERATORS

OPERATORS INFORMATION TELEX - OPERATORS INFORMATION TELEX
AND
FLIGHT OPERATIONS TELEX - FLIGHT OPERATIONS TELEX



TO: ALL A330 OPERATORS

SUBJECT: ATA 72 - A330 DUAL ENGINE FLAME OUT

OUR REF: SE 999.0069/JS dated 09 JUNE 2006

CLASSIFICATION: INCIDENT - ADVICE (FLIGHT OPERATIONS)

REFERENCE
- OIT SE 999.0067/06/JS dated 02 JUNE 2006

1. PURPOSE

The purpose of OIT/FOT is to provide latest update and to provide operational
recommendations on the dual engine flame out event reported through
OIT ref. SE 999.0067/06/JS dated 02 JUNE 2006.

2. EVENT DESCRIPTION

On 1 June 2006 an A330-200 aircraft, equipped with General Electric (GE) CF6-80E1
engines, experienced a dual engine flame out during descent around flight level 200.
Both engines quickly recovered and a safe landing was performed.

3. INVESTIGATION STATUS

The investigation into this event is led by the Investigation Authorities with assistance from
Airbus. The investigation is still in its early stages, however, DFDR preliminary analysis has
shown that:
- During descent, while engines started to accelerate for aircraft altitude capture, both engines
flamed out simultaneously.
- Both engines automatically relit after flame out, and recovered within approximately 45 seconds.
- Engine Anti Ice had been selected ON during the descent, and Wing Anti Ice had been
selected ON shortly prior to the event.
- Aircraft systems behavior was normal including automatic RAT extension.

Boroscope inspections have been performed on both engines without significant findings.

Based on the above, the initial Airbus/GE view is that this event is similar to other power loss
events at altitudes above 10 000 ft attributed to inclement weather as experienced on CF6-80
engines installed on various aircraft types.

The aircraft returned to service on 7 June 06.

4. OPERATIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS

Waiting for final investigation results, in order to increase the fuel/air ratio in the engine so as
to mitigate the possibility of experiencing an engine flame out, the following provisional
procedure is recommended:

? If inclement weather/icing conditions are expected at any time during descent or if convective activity is identified by the weather radar in the vicinity of the aircraft flight path:


At top of descent:

- ENG ANTI ICE__ON
- WING ANTI ICE_..ON
- PACK FLOW___HI

Below 10000 feet :
Resume normal anti ice and pack flow operation according to weather conditions.

Note that the fuel consumption and the idle thrust will slightly increase when selecting ENG ANTI ICE_ON, WING ANTI ICE_ON, and PACK FLOW_HI.

Final operational recommendations will be implemented in the FCOM/QRH via OEB or TR.


5. FOLLOW-UP PLAN
An update will be provided by 16 June 06.


i want to add more information that the incident happen in qatar airways flight qr889 from inc-pvg at time 1400utc and the the crew did exlcellant jope:D

Alty
11th Jun 2006, 19:53
Yes - understood.
My point is that the 80E1 is a fairly mild derivative of the 80C2, and was probably certified based on a "same core" philosophy - i.e. the high compressor, burner and high turbine are essentially identical in design to the 80C2. The fact that the fan diameter of an 80E1 is a few inches larger than an 80C2 is probably not of consequence to flameout resistance. By the same token, there are plenty of 80A engines out there on early 767 airplanes. I think I have heard that they were taking the same prevention measures as for the 80C2 operators.
The fact that GE/Airbus are recommending the same operational prevention measures as the other -80 engines might suggest that they believe the 80E1 has the same issue - it even says that in the operator letter posted earlier. Perhaps a -80 is a -80 regardless of A, E or C2.
Does anyone know if Airbus released these operational recommendations for the A300 and A310? Also, how many A330's with 80E1 engines are out there?

cornwallis
12th Jun 2006, 23:26
The Airbus item above mentions previous flame-outs on the cf6-80 family above 10000ft,doeas anybody have a link to further info?I have always thought that the cf6 was pretty agricultural in comparison to a Rolls,and I have seen what happens when one lets go.I think I will select cont relight in the descent permanently, in future, if there is any moisture around!

Ugly Buzzard
13th Jun 2006, 13:57
I wonder if there was an option to go around the red or just plough through it. You can mitigate a situation like this by avoiding it.

Joetom
13th Jun 2006, 17:16
Cornwallis,
.
Not sure that IGN will stop this type of event, Looks more like airflow control will be the fix.

Feather #3
14th Jun 2006, 09:54
Further to my previous post, a chat with an expert much closer to the drama elicited that the "E" series core is different from the "C" series such that this problem isn't the same as the B744 problem. Indeed, another A330 operator under almost identical circumstances had a single failure shortly after the double; both apparently associated with icing.

Sorry for the red herring!:=

G'day ;)

Alty
15th Jun 2006, 15:56
Other sources seem to indicate otherwise. So we'll just have to wait and see. Airbus promised an update - hopefully someone can post it when it comes out.

320DRIVER
16th Jun 2006, 10:00
Good article on the subect in Flight at;

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2006/06/13/207165/GE+investigates+double+CF6-80+flame-out+on+Qatar+A330-200+into+Shanghai%2c+believed+to+be+type's.html