9 Hurt in Air Transat Emergency Landing in Azores

[The Guvnor]

An Air Transat A310 flying from Lisbon to Toronto made an emergency landing in the Azores this morning after a "sudden loss" of fuel.

The aircraft burst tyres on landing, and it is reported that fuel has been spilled extensively on the runway, causing the airport's closure.

Nine passengers were reportedly injured in the evacuation.

[ionov]

Some information:
www.globeandmail.ca (http://www.globeandmail.ca)

:confused: :confused: :confused:

[stagger]

Some reports claim it was an A330. Anyone know for sure?

It's been a difficult week for Air Transat. I understand that last Sunday they had an emergency evacuation of a L-1011 at Orlando due to smoke in the cabin at the start of the take-off roll.

[ 24 August 2001: Message edited by: stagger ]

[The Guvnor]

From CBC:

WebPosted Fri Aug 24 07:07:21 2001

AZORES ISLANDS - Nine passengers were sent to hospital in shock when a Canadian passenger jet made an emergency landing and caught fire in the Azores islands on Friday.

The Air Transat jet was on its way from Toronto to Lisbon when it began leaking fuel over the Atlantic ocean.

After detecting the fuel leak, the pilot pointed the Airbus 330 for the Azores' Lajes airport.

By the time it got there, the plane was completely without power. Witnesses said it glided toward the airport before bouncing to a stop on the runway, its landing gear in flames.

The fire was quickly put out.

The 293 passengers escaped without injury, but nine went to hospital suffering from shock.

An emergency spokesman said tires blew out on the jet, and fuel leaked onto the runway. The airport was closed afterwards.

Information about the number of passengers and crew on board was not immediately available.

Written by CBC News Online staff

=====

According to a source of mine in Air Transat, one of their A330s - KTS - has been subject to serious fuel leak problems for some time now and an engineer has been travelling with it contstantly. It would be interesting to see if this is the aircraft involved in today's incident.

[Rockhound]

Even if the CBC news report, faithfully reproduced by the Guv is only partially correct, this incident is quite a story - shades of the Gimli Glider! However, as anyone in Canada interested in aviation knows, the reporting staff at the Holy Mother Corp (that's the CBC to all you non-Canadians) couldn't tell the difference between an A330 and an AS 350. I, for one, am on tenterhooks waiting for some factual details from a reliable source.
Rockhound

[Evo7]

CNN:
http://europe.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/08/24/portugal.landing/index.html

[The Guvnor]

OK, more info straight from the moose's mouth ... the aircraft was an A330, registration C-GITS; and the flight was enroute YYZ-LIS.

[Desk Driver]

One hell of a job done by the crew for sure!

[The Guvnor]

If you have Real Audio, this makes for interesting viewing... CBC Air Transat A330 Coverage (http://cbc.ca/clips/ram-lo/roberts_transat010824.ram)

[markbingo]

http://cbc.ca/cgi-bin/templates/view.cgi?/news/2001/08/24/emrgncy_land010824

Total respect to the Pilot of this one.

:)

[tunturi]

Yet again Guvnor, I say not bad for a couple of system monitors and autopilot button pushers. Please don't come back and comment on the monitoring of the fuel leak.

If this really was a dead stick job then as well as being a remarkable effort it was also very, very fortunate to be within range of anywhere!! Not too many options in that neck of the woods.

As someone else has already said: respect!

[PaperTiger]

If the Guvnor's source is reliable then two TS 330s have/had fuel leaks. How about other operators, or is it just a coincidence happening twice on the same airline ?

Don't know how 'witnesses' can tell if he had power or not, but it certainly looks like he was unable to flare. If the fuel was all gone in the middle of the Atlantic this has to be one of the luckiest and happiest outcomes we've seen in a while.

[New Bloke]

Oh well, another 1.25 million dollars for a distressed passenger.

Incidentally it says in the CBC report “The airline says the pilot has been flying for 30 years, and is calling him a hero” could this be a case of Pilot fatigue, 30 years is a long shift.

:D

Respect

[dmmoore]

There's a lot more to this one than a "FUEL LEAK". The fuel leaks I see on the Airbus (A300 and A310) will not cause anyone to run short of fuel.

This sounds like a fuel line separation where fuel could not be delivered to the engines from a tank or where fuel was being dumped overboard from an engine feed line.

I'm surprised that the cabin didn't report fuel for vapor dumping in the event the problemw as the latter.

[The Guvnor]

From Transport Canada's website:

=========

No. H099/01
For release August 24, 2001

TRANSPORT CANADA TAKES PRECAUTIONARY SAFETY MEASURES FOLLOWING AIR TRANSAT INCIDENT

OTTAWA - Transport Minister David Collenette today announced that Transport Canada has sent a Minister's observer and a team of specialists to the Azores Islands following the emergency landing of an Air Transat A330 aircraft en-route from Toronto to Lisbon. The team is comprised of specialists in the area of aircraft maintenance and operations.

In addition, Transport Canada has suspended Air Transat's Extended Range Twin Engine Operations authority effective immediately. The suspension will remain in effect until Transport Canada is satisfied that no safety deficiencies exist. This suspension will require Air Transat to alter overseas flights involving its three A330 aircraft so that they remain closer to suitable en-route airports between the point of departure and destination.

Transport Canada, as part of its regulatory program of comprehensive monitoring, inspections and audits on all air operators, will begin a special audit of Air Transat maintenance and operations immediately, as well as conduct increased surveillance of Air Transat's aviation program to ensure compliance with all Canadian Aviation Regulations.

Transport Canada's team will join representatives of the Transportation Safety Board of Canada who have already sent an accredited representative to the investigation. In accordance with the International Civil Aviation Organization, the Portuguese Authority is responsible for investigating this occurrence. Transport Canada will cooperate fully throughout the investigation and will take immediate action, as appropriate, should any regulatory or safety deficiencies be uncovered.

"We are grateful that this incident did not result in any serious injuries or loss of life," said Mr. Collenette. "While any occurrence of this nature is taken very seriously, Canada's aviation system continues to serve millions of passengers safely and efficiently every year. Transport Canada will take whatever action is required to protect the Canadian travelling public."

======

Since this was put out, I have been informed - but have been unable as yet to confirm - that Air Transat's A330s have been grounded following the crew saying that what happened was an "uncommanded fuel dump" and that they were unable to stop it.

If true, then surely other operators will have been notified of this extremely serious problem - anyone from Airtours, bmi british midland etc able to comment??

[Vonkprop]

No ETOPS? Eina kak. That's got to hurt. How thin are the margins on a charter like that anyway? 3%? 5%? Will CMM keep it's fares low and try to screw Transat or will AC, CMM and Transat all use this as an opportunity to raise fares on a low-yield route?

My bet is...watch the Canadian public pay! Yet another reason why Gerry Schwartz should have been allowed to buy CPA. Call me a sceptic.

[Squawk 8888]

Both my sister and I have had the misfortune of being SLF on Air Transat flights so I am glad to hear that their maintenance ops are being audited. I'm sure their pilots are first-rate, but their operation on the ground is nothing short of abysmal- in dealing with them I get the sense that they couldn't marshall a one-float parade. It is impossible to obtain info on flights (I once called their arrival info line and got a recording of the status of all flights from a date three months earlier), check-in counters are often deserted at departure time, all tech problems are handled for the convenience of the carrier (they once forced all pax to sit on A/C in Cuba for 10 hours because they didn't want to use a shop in Florida), cabin crew are rude to the extreme and their on-time record is a sick joke. With all of that happening in full view of the customers, I shudder to think of what must be going on behind the scenes.

[Fragment88]

So, an uncommanded fuel dump a possibility?

Any commection with an incident in the early days of the A340? AF 340 over a Pond somewhere starts dumping for reasoms best known to itself. The advice from Toulouse is eventually to shut down an particular engine (Only way to depower a particular bit of essential electrics that was powering up the problem!).
Hotly denied at the time by the Ministry of Truth at Airbus

Very good show by all the crew--(don't forget the Cabin Crew)!

[Vonkprop]

Hear Hear. I didn't mean to diminish the efforts of the crew. Well done.

[RRAAMJET]

Another "legendary save" is born....exceedingly well done, no matter what the cicumstances leading up to the diversion.

[Ashock]

Now these guys can log some more time in their gliding log book. A big glider though.
I suppose, some glider flying experience will come in handy in thse sort of situations !!!! :cool: :cool:

[MasterGreen]

We don't know yet what caused the "drama" - but if it was a "software feature" dumping the liquid gold and these boys really did a GLIDE then I am standing and clapping with the rest of us...

Whatever the details - and I am sure they will be soon with us. Great job boys and girls. Great job.....

MG

[max_cont]

According to Sky news this morning, the crew shut down one engine with an oil leak and then they started to lose fuel. No mention was made about the source of the leak.

I must say, the first thing that crossed my mind was, is it another case of uncommanded fuel dump?

Well done to all the crew. Remind me again. What page is that procedure on in the "nothing more than a system monitor" manual. ;)

[ 25 August 2001: Message edited by: max_cont ]

[Apocalypse]

Re the fuel dump scenario - the A330's I fly do not have a jettison system so you can rule that one out. However not sure if it is a customer "option" - I doubt it.

[The Guvnor]

Apocalypse - so what happens then when you have serious problems just after take off at MTOW? With no jettison system you're going to have to fly around a fair while to burn off all that fuel!! :D :confused: :D

[big bus driver]

I've heard that one engine flamed out, the aircraft then lost 12 tonnes of fuel over the next 20 mins, before the other Trent flamed out.

The a/c was then a glider from 34,000 ft.

[puff]

Those canadian boys sure can glide! First the 767 then the A330. Well done though i'm sure the captain of that knocked back a few beers afterwards!

[The Guvnor]

Heard this morning from a friend at Air Transat that the first engine was shut down - then the fuel dump problem started which made life rather interesting for the crew - and the other engine, of course!

CBC reports that Air Transat have been cited for seven maintenance infringements over the past year - including using an L1011 part on an A330. As that can mean anything from a seatbelt to a rivet, I wouldn't attach too much importance to it at this stage.

Apparently, the A330 is not much liked by anyone at Air Transat - with crews preferring by far the L1011 - apart from the accountants. Any other A330 operators feel the same?

[ANDERSON]

I was in Orlando MCO last Saturday night and had a two hour start up delay due to TS over the field.An Air Transat L1011 pushed back before the ramp was closed and we thought departed.When we finally got going he was at the stop end of 36R with all the chutes deployed which meant that 36L was the only runway being used.17/35 was not being used due to the weather.I counted approx 25 aircraft waiting to go.Lightning strike causing smoke ?? Anybody know what was wrong.

[FREDA]

This incident could have major ramifications on ETOPS. Unless there was a procedural or maintenance problem with this specific aircraft then surely A330 ETOPS will also have to be suspended pending investigation.

Also, given that all ETOPS operations are justified by the huge odds against both engines failing in flight, will this damage ETOPS credibility?

Given that virtually every airline operating on the Atlantic now relies heavily (or entirely) on big twins can the industry afford a large scale review of ETOPS?

[The Guvnor]

Anderson - there was smoke in the cabin (from the airconditioning system apparently - the Captain did the right thing (in my opinion) and got everyone off asap and asked questions later.

FREDA - yes, especially if it transpires that anything similar has happened with other Airbus twins. The Hapag Lloyd A310 last year comes to mind?

I'm trying to find out more about the nature of the fuel leak on the other TS A330.

[stagger]

Regarding ETOPS implications - surely it doesn't matter how many engines you've got if you haven't got any fuel.

So I wonder what the rationale is for suspending Air Transat’s ETOPS certification? Could it have something to do with the fact that this incident initially involved an engine failure, or perhaps because the fuel leak may have arisen as a consequence of engine maintenance problems?

Can anyone explain?

[ 25 August 2001: Message edited by: stagger ]

[packsonflite]

Fuel dump is indeed an optional extra on the A330. I know for a fact that the bmi british midland aircraft do not have it fitted. The aircraft is certified for overweight landings right up to MTOW in an emergency.

Well done the Air Transat guys on a nice bit of flying!!! :)

[Mr A Tis]

I stand to be corrected FREDA, but if the aircraft dumped all it's fuel in the ocean, it doesn't matter how many engines are strapped to it-they won't be turnin'.

What a story though. Fantastic work by the crew.

Does anyone know if its true that this aircraft had a history of leaks? If so,then someone at Transat needs to provide some answers pretty quickly ! :confused:

[Belgique]

This might give a few clues:

particularly if the C of G cruise control adjustments cut in after a precautionary shut-down.
http://203.59.230.234/images/airtransat/Fuelloss.html

[FREDA]

If the aircraft suffered from an uncommanded fuel dump, then the implications for ETOPS aren't so severe.

However the nature of the fuel loss has yet to be explained. There were also initially rumours of large amounts of fuel on the runway which might indicate fuel starvation rather than loss. Obviously the facts aren't all in, but when a twin engined aircraft losed both engines in flight ostensibly due to different and possibly unrelated faults (i.e. inflight shut due to low oil pressure and fuel starvation) then that's enough to give me the heebies. I think it's fair to say that only accountants really liked ETOPS to begin with.

On another issue, how did they power their electrical and hydraulic systems in the descent? Would they have needed the APU? If so then there obviously was some fuel left in the airplane to run it.

[gas path]

If the a/c was enroute YYZ/LIS and it's only got as far as the Azores that seems like an awful lot of fuel to suddenly 'lose'.
I don't know the 'bus but an uncommanded fuel dump, if it could happen would not empty a tank, surely it would only reduce to a stack pipe level.
What with the GE90 compressor failures last week ETOPS could be going the same way as the dinosours :)

[The Guvnor]

The A330 has a RAT.

If you have a serious technical emergency and return to land, is it really sensible landing with a full fuel load? Surely a big ball of flame may well result??

[fergineer]

Amazing how much information comes out when an Airbus has a problem, and rightly so . Yet when I asked about the Continental Triple computer failure on a Boeing there was nothing, maybe they like to keep their problems in house.
Well done to the 2/3 flight deck for some great flying if it was deadstick and a good show from the cabin crew, there must have been mayhem on board.
All of this done without an FE, marvelous

[ 25 August 2001: Message edited by: fergineer ]

[widgeon]

Was on the news that Transat have been forced by Transport Canada to modify their ETOPS atlantic route. My question , what is the normal max distance from a useable field that is allowed and what is the revised distance ?.

[CamelChaser]

Sorry guys....all the speculation and innuendo of this post is entirely unfoundered..here's the facts according to the Gulf News 25 August (AFP report);

"....Portuguese emigre passenger Jose Gasper said those on board were gripped by panic as the plane, which had sprung a carburetor leak, dipped alarmingly- and repeatedly- while making its descent......."

All I can say is that the A330 must have f8$%#@n big carburetors!

All credit to the pilots though, despite this wonderful reporting.

:D

[Richthofen]

Become a parcel, then You will have more than 2 engines in ER - Ops. :(

Thanks to the guy who put the island on the right spot.

Congratulation to the fellows who made this unbelievable Job

[darryld]

Widgeon, without ETOPS aircraft must fly within 300NM of a suitable airport, with ETOPS aircraft must fly within 180 minutes (on one engine?) from a suitable field. My understanding is that airlines can be certified for not only 180 minutes but 120 and 90 minutes as well. Can anyone expand further on this?

I understand that Skyservice lost their ETOPS for their A330 in Europe a while ago due to two engine failures within a couple hundred hours of each other. The engine failures were the fault of the engine manufacturer, my question is this: Are the aircraft and engine companies (Boeing, Airbus, GE, Rolls-Royce) ever held responsible financially for the airlines hardships due to losing their ETOPS certification?

[widgeon]

Did a bit more research on TC web site , is the reduced ETOPS 60 mins at single engine cruise speed as opposed to 180 mins ? what is single engine cruise speed for A330 ?.

Thanks Darryl , I was looking for more info on the Airbus web site ( no detailed tech info)

[ 25 August 2001: Message edited by: widgeon ]

[smith]

Let's build a few man-made islands in the Atlantic and the Pacific for ETOPS. :p

[SOPS]

What ever caused it, all I can say is, to EACH and EVERYONE of the crew (flight deck and cabin alike), a cool, smooth job people. Very well done, and my kindest thoughts to you all, (because I hope I never have to prove myself in a situation like that). Once again, WELL DONE TO ALL :) :) :) :) :)

[sky9]

Some of you guys are wondering if the A330's ETOPS should be withdrawn.

Shouldn't the question be asked of its Airworthiness Certificate?

What next - flush the bog and the gear goes down?

[SaturnV]

According to Reuters, Air Transat's routings must now be within one hour's flying time of an airport.

"Worried officials with Canada's Transport Ministry in Ottawa did not ground Air Transat, but limited the airline's operating authority on its three Airbus 330s, requiring the company to fly the jets closer to airports on long-haul routes.

Instead of flying in a more direct line to Europe, which meant Air Transat's Airbus 330s
could be up to two hours away from the nearest airport, the jets must now follow a more northerly route near Greenland or Iceland to ensure they are no more than one hour from an airport, Canadian officials said.

"We're very, very concerned about this,'' Art LaFlamme, director general of civil aviation at Transport Canada, told Reuters.

"To my knowledge this is the first instance of this occurring in Canada or even worldwide,'' he added.

LaFlamme was referring to indications that the airliner continued to lose fuel during the flight despite design specifications for the Airbus which allow the flight crew to shut down a troubled engine and reroute or conserve fuel while using the remaining functional engine.

"The system is designed so that they can fly on one engine...so the continued loss of fuel
is probably the most perplexing situation here that has to be explained,'' he said.

Transport Canada also plans to audit Air Transat's flight and maintenance operations to ensure they meet regulatory requirements.

Air Transat's Lemay said the airliner had been in service since 1999."

[Hot Rod]

About the 60-min non-ETOPS: Max 60 minutes from an adequate airport at the selected one-engine-inoperative speed in still air and ISA conditions.

The max distance acc to JAR-OPS 1.245 depends on the choice of engines, Air Transat with their RR engines should then have a maximum distance of 430 Nm from an adequate airfield (but Air Transat might not operate acc to JAR-OPS).

About fuel dumping: Swissair don´t have it, Novair don´t have it.

[Rockhound]

SOPS (and others?),
No question that the flight crew did an incredible job and cannot be praised too highly for accomplishing the landing but, IF Canadian newspaper reports can be believed, the cabin crew did not all function coolly and smoothly, according to quotes from passengers. Apparently, the passengers were eating breakfast when suddenly the F/A's started rushing around to gather up the dishes. An announcement was made that the passengers should prepare for an emergency landing: shoes to be removed, lifejackets to be donned. Oxygen masks dropped. One passenger is quoted as recalling "We had the (cabin) crew running around, yelling at each other and yelling at passengers". The same passenger stated that the F/A giving instructions over the P/A system in English was calm and reassuring but the one speaking Portuguese, who followed, sounded nervous and close to tears. The passenger, a 24 year-old student helicopter pilot, estimated the aircraft glided for about 7 minutes. Other press reports give an unpowered flight time of between 10 and 23 minutes.According to a Portuguese official, the aircraft came to a stop 33 minutes after declaring an emergency.It appears that the flight crew's emergency advisory to the cabin crew and passengers was sudden and no doubt led to a certain amount of panic among the F/A's (understandable if unfortunate).
We've only heard the beginnings of this story, all of it second-hand. Lots more to come out, that's for sure.
Rockhound

[The Guvnor]

http://www.tdi.net/cousino/fuel_light.gif

[packsonflite]

Guvnor - not funny! :mad:

[tunturi]

Guvnor
>If you have a serious technical emergency and return to land, is it really sensible landing with a full fuel load? Surely a big ball of flame may well result??<

For someone who purports to know so much about aviation you are remarkably naive. As a mere "systems monitor" I am at a loss as to why you would think/assume that returning with a full fuel load in a "serious technical emergency" should result in a "a big ball of flame"

Every departure brief I give contains words along the lines of "in the event of smoke/fire in the cabin or any fire which does not extinguish, we will return here immediately (weather permitting) and accept the landing mass is X tonnes above the NORMAL limit" This is on an aircraft with no fuel dump and a considerable difference between the max TOM and max landing mass (normal) and could take in excess of 4 hours to burn that fuel off.

What would you do if you had a dump system fitted AND engine fire indications? Perhaps go for a bigger fireball in the air?

As I say your naiveity astounds me. :confused:

[ 25 August 2001: Message edited by: Airboeing ]

[The Guvnor]

Ok, I'll take the bait ... what would happen if you had either a total hydraulic failure and/or a total systems failure? Obviously you'd need to get back onto the ground asap - but surely if you have a situation where the gear might collapse and/or a brake fire break out (as happened with the Transat aircraft) then surely a full fuel load would make life rather interesting?

And, if your position is that dumping fuel is a waste of time and money - why is it that airliners have dump systems?

I'm not trying to score points here - I'm genuinely puzzled as to why Airbus think they don't need something everyone else does!

[bumpthrust]

You just won't give up spouting, will you Guv? Even when you reveal your utter ignorance to thousands...

At least we know now why double engine failure is in the Conversion syllabus...

[widgeon]

do flight manuals give procedures for 0 engine glides ?. I recall at the time of the Gimli Glider that a 2 engine failure was considered such an unlikely event it was not included in the flight manual. DO you ever go through it in the sims ?.

[OzDude]

Sheesh Guv, when are you going to get it? Most people on here with any knowledge of the airline industry, especially us 'systems monitors' as you like to call pilots, have no respect for you or your self promoting bovine excretia. You singularly fail to realise that your delusions of supposed knowledge about the job only come back to haunt you and prove to the rest of us that you are nothing but a fraud and a pilot groupie who uses Pprune as a laxative for your own mental constipation.

Never mind taking the bait, you fail to realise that the only people you manage to impress, and then only for a short while, are naive wannabes who are easily led by your fraudulent claims of being an airline exec and former pilot. If you or any of your camp followers need proof that you are so full of your own self importance and your ignorance of issues that are necessary for us 'systems monitors' to be aware of I will try and explain a few basic for you:

You asked "And, if your position is that dumping fuel is a waste of time and money - why is it that airliners have dump systems?" If you had any insight into the job that you are always so quick to spout off about you would know that a fuel dump system, if one is available, is to allow an aircraft to reduce the total amount of fuel in a particular tank... if time and circumstances permit it.

On the Boeing 767-300 for example, The capacity of the useable fuel in the tanks is 18,450Kg in each wing tank and 36,500Kg in the center tank. The total useable fuel capacity is 73,400Kg. When the 767-300 is fueled, the wing tanks must be filled first and then the remaining fuel is put in the center tank. Fuel is used first from the center tank and then from the wing tanks.

On this aircraft the fuel dump only does so from the center tank and then at a maximum rate of 1,200Kg a minute. Use your spare brain capacity to work out how long it would take to dump a full centre tank (rare as the payload would have to be substantially reduced). Don't worry, I'll do it for you because you are no doubt looking up some numbers to try and dazzle us all with your knowledge, NOT. 30 minutes to dump a full center tank and you would still have 36,900Kg in the wings which you CANT dump!

So you see, if you have a serious problem that mandates getting the plane back on the ground in a hurry, not sure what because I am only a system monitor, then you may have to hang around for 30 minutes just dumping what you can and then still have to try and land with over 35 tons of fuel still in the wings! Oh hang on. I have just thought of a problem where I may want to get the plane on the ground in a hurry without dumping fuel, an engine fire that will not extinguish or perhaps smoke in the cabin or cockpit. Those are the first two that spring immediately to mind. Guv, can you in your vast wisdom think of any others? I doubt it because you are such a Walter Mitty type that most of us on here do not fall for your bull.

The 767-300 can land above max landing weight up to and including max certified weight. It just means that it would require an overweight landing inspection after the event. Much cheaper option than us 'system monitors' losing it because we are so traumatised by the Guvs predictions about how we really are nothing more than overpaid prima donnas that just jump out of our seats in a panic, wringing our hands in grief and go sit in a corner blubbering away because we are not capable of dealing with a particular situation.

Of course if the problem is one where you still need to get back on the ground but there is no immediate danger then you would be able to go somewhere and reduce the weight but at no time does it guarantee that you will get below the max landing weight of the aircraft, just that you will be at a lower weight which gives you slower manouvering speeds and the ability to use less landing distance.

So you see Mr know-it-all Guv, SOME airliners have fuel dump systems but for someone like you who has such vast experience in this industry should know that they are not the panacea that you imagine it to be, especially if you have to get your plane on the ground within a few minutes. And if you thought that a fuel dump system could empty ALL the fuel tanks then I am glad you don't have any input on an engineering or design forum.

Finally you said "I'm not trying to score points here - I'm genuinely puzzled as to why Airbus think they don't need something everyone else does!" Frankly, I believe you ARE trying to score points as you do in EVERY one of your pathetic posts that contain one or more of your assumed gems of wisdom but which in reality only contain only the brown stuff that comes out of the south end of a northbound bull. From what has been stated, the fuel dump is a customer option on the Airbus A330. On the 757 it is not available and on the 767-300 it only dumps the center tank anyway. So your high and mighty tone as to why Airbus THINK they dont need something that everyone else does just proves to me and the vast majority of 'systems monitors' that you are in great danger of exploding if you do not use your own 'bovine excretion dump' with such frequency on thses forums.

Perhaps it is about time that the Guv found himrself somewhere else, where he can try and impress a few gullible types and left the rest of us in peace. If the mention in a different post about a few of his creditors seriously trying to find him is true then maybe once the course of the law and justice has taken its course we will all get some peace!

[Lu Zuckerman]

Here is the story, as I understand it. The two major fuel lines going into the engine fractured or became separated just upstream of the firewall shut-off on the effected engine. This engine shut down due to fuel starvation and the remainder of the fuel drained out of the two open lines at which time the other engine shut down.

[Mulligan]

Hmmm...
If you **** all the fuel from one wing tank out some broken pipes then shouldn't you still have fuel in the other tank?(Assuming the crossfeed valve is closed.)I'm not familiar with the 330.
Someone asked if we train for complete loss of engine thrust. The answer is yes and even in the box it can ruin a perfectly good shirt:-)
I'm a domestic type now but spent 2 years doing ETOPS on the 767. If memory serves we had 180 minute authority and I forget the mileage but it was based on 330kts.M.80 (too lazy to do the math). I always thought you would really have to flog that one (oh so precious) engine but then nothing says you actually have to get to Magadan in three hours, just be able to. For those who don't know, Magadan is a Mig strip in Siberia and only an accountant could think of it in terms of a "suitable" alternate. And ETOPS is, after all, something that only bean counters could be fond of.

[darryld]

I was at Toronto - Pearson Airport this evening and at Terminal 3 at a gate in between two Air Transat aircraft was an SATA International A310 and on the tail it said to visit the Azores Islands. Could you imagine the irony of being an Air Transat passenger on one of those aircraft reading the newspaper about the AT emergency landing then looking out the windows and seeing an invitation to land at the same place.

Was this aircraft returing AT passengers or is SATA a regular at Toronto?

[Wiley]

A number of people have shown they don’t know very much about ETOPS and/or the A330 in the comments they’ve made here. I’ve got no problem with that in most cases.

However, I understand that the person who started the thread purports to be an L1011 pilot. By his comments here, he’s proven himself to be a fraud – or the person who signed him off on his conversion course needs a serious talking-to re standards.
Guv, if you had any in the first place, you’ve blown your credibility BIG TIME in the patently silly remarks you’ve made here, proving to all and sundry that what knowledge you have of air transport ops has been learned, parrot fashion, from a textbook or from what you’ve overheard in a bar. If you ever have strapped an L1011 to your ass and lived to tell the tale, it’s mute testimony to the wonderful, forgiving, machine Kelly Johnson and the boys at Lockheed’s Skunk Works made for us ‘systems monitors’ to passively watch over.

This incident has brought home with one glaring, thankfully not fatal example what reams of written argument can never do over why pilots think they deserve more money – and recognition, even respect – than the bean counters are willing to give them in this age of almost total automation. It also shoots down in flames those who argue that automation should be used at all times.

I’ll be very interested to learn the background of the pilot – (perhaps that should read ‘pilotS’) – involved in this incident. London to a brick at least one of them had a good swag of bush flying up his sleeve before he found himself ‘monitoring’ the plastic jet where the automatics ‘always’ work.

My heartiest congratulations to all the crew. (And thank you, God, that it wasn’t me!) When the Monday morning quarterbacks, with three months at their disposal to carefully scrutinise every manual and regulation remotely pertinent to the situation you found yourselves in, decide that you didn’t get it 101% right in the few minutes you had to deal with it, remember that when push came to shove, you got your aircraft on the ground in one piece and all your passengers out of it alive. Where I come from, that means you all did an extraordinary job. Well done to you all.

And to any lawyer who takes on the case of the inevitable passenger who feels he/she was ‘traumatised’ by this incident to the point where he/she needs a couple of mill in recompense…

I think I’ll leave it at that.

[JR/FO]

He and crew deserve a round...

http://www.airlinerumor.com/images/capta330.jpg

Robert Piche, 49, the pilot of the Air Transat airplane that made an emergency landing at Lajes airport in Terciera Island, Portugal, on Friday, Aug. 24, 2001, is seen in this undated photo in Montreal. More than 50 passengers were injured Friday when the plane hit the runway and screeched to a halt after gliding without engines for 18 minutes. (AP Photo/Le Journal de Montreal)

**Please note---this is not the cockpit of a A-330-200 :p :p

Doctor Bob
AirlineRumor.com (http://AirlineRumor.com)

[ 26 August 2001: Message edited by: JR/FO ]

[ 26 August 2001: Message edited by: JR/FO ]

[gumbi]

It's all so easy to criticize and elaborate when you're not in the "hot seat"! :mad:

Unbelieveable job accomplished by that crew...

They'll never be congratulated enough, IMHO

BTW, the pax who said that the backend crew wasn't doing a good job is a wannabe helo pilot who also said, in the paper, that he found ANNOYING the fact that the elderly we're praying aloud... I think he missed a great opportunity to shut up

[Lazlo]

Guvnor,

Are you seriously suggesting that if you have a total hydraulic failure that you should fly around for ages burning off fuel (or even bother to wait for the fuel jettison if you are so equipped) so that you can land below MLW? You must be totally insane! First priority is always to get the aircraft onto the ground. Even if you have lost partial hydraulics. Get the aircraft on the ground before you lose more! Landing overweight does not mean the aircraft will blow up and even if you do burn fuel to get below MLW you will still have tons of it on board. Or are you suggesting that all fuel on board should be used and an engines-out glide approach is the only solution to all serious failures - just to ensure that fuel won't catch fire? Yeah, that would be great with a total hydraulic failure.

BTW, overweight landings happen ALL THE TIME. Usually in the case of a medical emergency shortly after takeoff. Are you saying that we should fly around dumping fuel every time there is a situation like this? Even with fuel jettison, a heart attack passenger would be long dead by the time you dumped enough fuel. As was mentioned earlier, it only requires an inspection.

Lazlo

[ 26 August 2001: Message edited by: Lazlo ]

[Vfrpilotpb]

Good mroning Ppruners,

Despite the huge cock-up on the fuel uptake, what a Pilot (or pilots) this/these guy/s must be, to glide an airbus and be able to time his arrival on a lump of rock just right (with only a little damage)he should get a "Golden Globe" for it,
but I'll just bet a shilling, that somebody , somewhere will sue for the trauma, not just happy enough to be alive!

[tunturi]

Guvnor

I believe my peers have more than made OUR point and so I just want to add one final thought. I am actually slightly hesitant to use the following example because the official report is not yet published, I believe, but I am going to take the gamble.

Swissair MD11, Nova Scotia, smoke/fire internally. It is MY understanding from that which I have so far read that the Captain of that aircraft insisted on dumping fuel to reduce landing weight whilst the Co-pilot urged him to get the aircraft on the ground NOW! IF this is indeed a true reflection of what happened then it may go the whole way to finally answer you and please, please don't grab this as an oppotunity to say that one of the "system monitors" failed, that would just be too crass even for you.

If this turns out to be incorrect then I humbly apologise to everyone for being guilty of that which I normally hate: people quoting "facts" before final reports.

[The Guvnor]

Umm, Wiley - when have I ever said that I'm an L10 jock?? :eek: :eek: I do, however, agree with the rest of your post. Incidentally, I'm sure you'll be interested to know that your guess about at least one of the crew having bush flying experience was spot on. The captain, Robert Piché, has been with Air Transat for 5 years prior to which he was a bush pilot for two decades, flying DC-6 for Conifair, a company specialising in low altitude forest spraying.

Ozdude - sheesh!! :D :D

[ 26 August 2001: Message edited by: The Guvnor ]

[lostinBRU]

Concerning engine out gliding performance of jets...... don't know about the 330, but other jets work well with a 1:1 profile from altitude and then convert any excess energy with gear/flap/whatever's left and plan to land 1/3 down the strip.

But, so many variables can affect.... e.g. assuming the a/c was clean in the cruise, a major factor would be whether the fans sieze up or not. If so, effectively having two fixed pitch props locked solid doesn't do you any favours.

Concerning the press reports about the gliding time.... 30 000ft @ 6000 ft/min plus a bit extra means 6/7/8 min max using the SWAG technique. (Scientific Wild Arsed Guess).

Even if he could do 2000 ft/min in the glide, lets say 16/18 min @ 4nm/min = ~ 70 nm from the field. Any further needs water wings.

Lucky lucky people!!! What is it with these Canadians being in the right place at the wrong time (ref. Boeing glider into pilots old training base!)?

Next time I go across the pond, I'll insist on a Mountie up the front!! :D :D

P.S. Guv'nor.....Sheesh!!!

[ 26 August 2001: Message edited by: lostinBRU ]

[Denzil]

Just for your info gents the jettison fuel dump rate is 1150Kg's (2536Lb's) a minute and has two switches required for it's use (arm & active). Jettison should cease when either one of the two switches are deselected, inner tank low level sensors are dry or the fuel quantity reaches the preselected figure in the FMGEC (flight management and guidance envelope computers). It will be very interesting to find the source of the fuel leak.
Must agree with all other (positive) comments regarding the crew, a job very well done.

[Richthofen]

Fuel Dump Provisions are also an option on the 767s.

IMHO spending money for that pays back after the first near MTOW - Landing which in almost every case ends up in flat tires, glowing axes and fire brigade appearance at the aircraft. (Think of the PAX !)

Just a small amount of "return to field" landings are due to fire or any other immediate reason, so that you have time enough to get rid of 30 tons of fuel (767) in order not to stress the aircraft and it´s value which pays off, too.

High density seating gives You a high ZFW. So at least the "english style" interior should make use of the option.

As far as I know a dual hydraulic failure of an A330-200 gives you a required landing distance of some 3500 m.(heard of)

Good for the guys operating out of Orlando with the near by Kennedy Space Center....

[tunturi]

Richthofen

3500m landing distance required sounds more like an anti-skid failure type figure but I don't know the A330 at all. Would be surprised if your figure is correct though for dual hydraulic failure, I would expect A/Skid to still be operable through a reserve/backup system or accumulators.

[Deep Float]

I thought this to be a thread about the Air Transat A330 incident at LPLA recently.
But as usual, it has ended up in a slanging match between frêle ego's who know their stuff and someone who has a somewhat thicker skin and, not being a pilot, the victim of his so-called ignorance. Ignorance for not having ATP or Engineer's level aircraft knowledge, to be exact. But maybe the Guvnor (I have never met him, by the way) 's an aviation professional, but in a different field. Pilots still seem to forget that it takes more that just them to form an airline. And as this is a forum for aviation pro's, he has as much right to vent his opinion and -all he was doing in my eyes- seek background information from other aviation pro's, pilots or not. I know the man has slipped up badly in the past (I remember Laywer Girl in particular), but so have I and most other people, maybe just not so public.

In short, keep to the subject, and if you can't stop slagging others off, them it's maybe YOU who should keep quiet.

I feel a response coming......

[ 26 August 2001: Message edited by: Deep Float ]

[D Beaver]

Air Transat press release at : [URL=http://www.newswire.ca/releases/August2001/25/c2342.html]http://www.newswire.ca/releases/August2001/25/c2342.html[/ URL]

Extract from the release:
"THE TS 236 FLIGHT INCIDENT AND INVESTIGATION
Flight TS 236 left Toronto on time at 8:10 p.m. EST on August 23. While the Airbus A330-200, operating since 1999, was flying at a cruising altitude of 39,000 feet and was around 30 minutes from the Azores, a technical problem caused a significant loss of fuel. The captain then took appropriate measures.

He decided to direct the aircraft towards Terceira, the closest airport, and had passengers prepare for a possible ditching - a procedure required for all emergencies over water. Both aircraft engines ceased functioning several minutes prior to landing. Eight of the ten landing gear wheels burst on touchdown. No fire or smoke was reported in the cabin. Emergency evacuation procedures were rapidly and systematically implemented. The hypothesis of incorrect fuelling in Toronto has been definitely ruled out."

[ 26 August 2001: Message edited by: D Beaver ]

[Rockhound]

Surely Peter B (vfrpilotpb) has put his finger on the nub of the problem when he cites a "huge cock-up" on the fuel uptake by the A330 in Toronto. (I wonder where he got that tidbit?). The local newspaper here, the Ottawa Citizen, quotes Portuguese air force captain Antonio Santos, "PR officer for the Azores air zone", as saying that when TS 236 declared an emergency, they advised they had only 10 minutes fuel left and were at least 20 min from the Azores. How can a "fuel leak" remain undetected for so long, until such a critically low fuel reserve remains? Surely a modern aircraft cannot suddenly lose fuel catastrophically and remain in the air? Did the flight depart Toronto significantly short on fuel? Even then, why did things become interesting only when 10 min of fuel remaining were indicated?
Re Gumbi's posting regarding the actions of the cabin crew: I've read the Ottawa Citizen and the Globe and Mail accounts and nowhere is Rodrigues, the student pilot, quoted as being "annoyed" by the audible prayers of his fellow-passengers. Frankly,I take my hat off to them for having the presence of mind to pray out loud; I'd have been too petrified even to think. Every time I contemplate that picture of a ditched airliner gently floating on the water in the emergency procedures card, I have to laugh.
Rockhound

[Vfrpilotpb]

Well said Deep Float

Hot ego's all over, means we have to read thru reams of crap to get to the facts.

Richtofan, what do you mean by "English Style" are you referring to the way our politicians always seem to lie on their backs whilst everyone else in Europe Rogers them!

[call the tower]

Camelchaser,

Why doesn't that surprise me....The Gulf news! Typical. Carbys on a jet. I am not the least bit surprised by that comment. That lot haven't got a clue.

I also like the comment "The tyres burst on landing" hmmm maybe they just deflated as per design to prevent explosion. Applying only break on an A330 to stop it with no reverse, the brakes will get a tad warm.

[F/O Junior]

Just in case someone cares for some background information about the A330-2:

ENG: ALL ENG FLAME OUT Checklist
This warning inhibits the EMER ELEC CONFIG warning.
-RAT MAN ON
This confirms RAT extension
-ENG START SEL.................................IGN
This confirms immediate relight attempt.
-THR LEVERS...................................IDLE
-OPTIMUM RELIGHT SPD.......................300/.82
300/.82 is the optimum relight airspeed for wind milling start. One fuelpump remains supplied down to 260 knots.
Note:
At 300/.82 with all engines stopped, it takes about 15 minutes to descend from FL400 to the ground. Distance is about 100 NM.
In case of speed indication failure (volcanic ash), the pitch attitude for optimum relight speed is -2 degrees (for weights above 150 tonnes add 1/2 degree for each 20 tonnes more).-EMER ELEC PWR..............................MAN ON Displayed only if the emergency generator is not automatically coupled.
-VHF 1.........................................USE
Only VHF1 is supplied. Notify traffic control of the nature of emergency encountered and state intentions. Transmit a distress message on VHF frequency 121.5 MHz (ATC not supplied).
* IF NO RELIGHT AFTER 30 SEC:
-ENG MASTERS............................OFF 30s/ON
ENG MASTERS must be left OFF for 30 seconds to allow for ventilation of combustion chamber.
*IF UNSUCCESSFUL:
*WHEN BELOW FL 250:
-APU (if operative)..........................START
*WHEN BELOW FL 200:
-WING ANTI ICE.................................OFF
-APU BLEED......................................ON
*IN SEQUENCE
-ENG MASTERS (one at the time)..........OFF 30s/ON
-OPTIMUM SPEED (when APU BLEED available)...230 KT
Green dot speed is not displayed on the captain PFD. Use 230 knots initially before checking in the QRH.
-CREW OXY MASKS (above FL 100)..................ON
-USE RUD WITH CARE
-If forced landing or ditching is expected, use forced landing or ditching procedure in the QRH.
*WHEN BLOW FL 150:
-RAM AIR........................................ON
*EARLY IN APPROACH:
-CAB SECURE..................................ORDER
*FOR SLATS EXTENSION:
-LAND RECOVERY..................................ON
-FOR LDG................................USE FLAP 1
At Flap 1 selection, the emergency generator stops.
-MIN RAT SPEED..............................140 KT
F/CTL servos are supplied be the RAT down to 130 knots.
*FOR LDG GRAVITY EXTENSION:
MAX SPEED...................................200 KT
-L/G GRVTY EXT (if no ditching expected)......DOWN
Disregrad "USE MAN PITCH TRIM" on PFD since the stabilizer control is lost.
*WHEN L/G DONWLOCKED:
-L/G DOWN TARGET SPEED.......................170KT
*AT TOUCH DOWN:
-ENG MASTERS...................................OFF
-APU MASTER SW.................................OFF
-EVACUATION...............................INITIATE
HYD B+Y SYS LO PR
-AFFECTED PUMPS................................OFF
MANEUVER WITH CARE
F/CTL ALTN LAW (PROT LOST)
SPD BRK.................................DO NOT USE
MAX SPEED..................................330/.82

plus STATUS ...

(I'm aware that a relight wasn't an option here, just wanted to offer the whole checklist.)

The ENG SHUT DOWN checklist does NOT ask for an opening of the FUEL X-FEED, as the A32x ECAM does, but requests to MONITOR the FUEL IMBALANCE. Therefore chances are lower to empty all tanks via the X-FEED by mistake. (I don't want to insinuate anything here!)

The FUEL LEAK checklist only allows the X-FEED to be opened, if the leak is confirmed to be within the engine and it is shut down. In all other cases (wing leak, unknown leak) the X-FEED must be remained closed.
Besides : Even with a fuel imbalance of one wing full / one wing empty, there is no special procedure required for approach and landing.

The A330 wingtanks consist of an outer tank and an inner tank. Each inner tank is divided into two parts via a SPLIT valve that normally remains open. The inner tank is used as a single tank and if tank damage is suspected (i.e.
FuelQuantityIndication data is lost or there is a rapid FQI decrease following an engine failure), the SPLIT valve can be manually closed by using the dedicated pushbutton. The ENG FAIL checklist with assumed damage to the eng. asks for that step.
This isolates 1150 kg fuel from the remaining innertank. The two main fuel pumps for each engine are located within this splitted tank section.
A GW of 170T results in a engine out FL of ~FL200. FF is approx 6500kg.
A GW of 210T results in a engine out FL of ~FL180. FF is approx 7400kg.

[McGinty]

CBC Radio News is reporting that the Air Transat plane was properly refuelled at Toronto before takeoff, and that hence the fuel problem must have had in-flight origins.

[Ex Servant]

Strange this happens know after Big Red L's recent enquiry about gliding in the Tech Log forum. Somebody else's opinion could one day save your bacon.

[WAIF-er]

As a member of cabin crew on the 330 200 for a brit charter, I can say that the cabin crew did well! Most airlines operate with 10 or 11 crew, although our minimum is 8. Its a bloody big plane to secure in just 10 minutes! Its a good 40 metre walk to the rear galley from 2 doors, especially when pushing a cart.

(By the way, nice to see that 7 of 8 escape slide rafts fully deployed.)

After reading the many postings, just a few bits I would add:

The Skyservice A330 300 (ex LTU) had Pratt engines, both failed within about 50 hours of each other from compressor blade corrosion. This was during Haj flights from Java. Same first officer on both shutdowns - unlucky!

The newer A330 200's are rated for much greater MTOW/MLW.

Fuel consumption on 1 engine is greater than normal cruise on both engines.

Many operators leave the centre fuel tank dry and opt to carry cargo instead. Otherwise it could fly for 16-18 hours non-stop!

[Rockhound]

OK, so if we accept that the aircraft was properly and adequately fuelled in Toronto, how come an emergency was declared only when just 10 minutes fuel remained?
Rockhound

[Zoner]

Mulligan: Don't know much about ETOPS(always had four to play with) but after 12 years of using Magadan as an enroute alternate our ops discovered the runway there is not stressed for heavies. Never has been. We don't even carry the approach plates anymore. Something for the twins to think about.

[Rollingthunder]

We need to know the real causal factors for this incident.

Focusing on Cabin Crew performance however, initial reports indicated a visible(to many of the pax) crew member crying and the CC on the PA doing the Portugese briefing choking in their speech. Guaranteed way to panic the cabin and not at all good performance..although perhaps understandable.
7 out of eight slides deploying is not acceptable or good performance. If there are eight, all eight should deploy. It's called maintenance standards.

Bursting tyres on touchdown raises an interesting question on braking effectiveness.

Edited for (

[ 27 August 2001: Message edited by: Rollingthunder ]

[Kato747]

Gotta congratulate the guys who pulled this one off (in the yank sense of the phrase...not the British). F..kin' well done!!!

If memory serves, didn't Air Plus (Red Comet kinda-guys) just have a multi-hour delay at Barajas due to a "Scare-Bus" fuel leak on the runway?

Note to SMITH: Man-made Islands ARE available in all the worlds oceans. They belong to the US Navy and have President's names on most (Eisenhower, Truman, Kennedy etc). I doubt seriously, however, that the Airbus is sturdy enough to handle the stopping stresses of a 'trap' though. :D :D

Just give me a Seattle product and I'll be happy! :) :)

[Tan]

Having not being there, I will not speculate on what happened, even if it appears to be painfully obvious to some..

I believe that MasterGreen posted an excellent article on the 767 "Double Hush" on the tech forum a while back. My major's (AC) training department and check pilots always made sure that the troops were unofficially exposed in the simulator to the unlikely event of a total engine failure on the Boeing types.

I never saw the same training on the Airbus (320/340) as I believe that we were too immersed in learning the complicated automatics then in flying the aircraft. There never seemed to be enough time left over in the simulator sessions to practice the all engine out situation, which was a pity.

If the TA pilots were never exposed in the simulator to such a event, then in IMHO they performed a awesome job. It appears that the crew were able to step out of the "SOP box", which is unusual in its self, and really show the world how to do it...Good show.

I'm just glad that it was them and not me, for doing it in the simulator is one thing, but actually having to do it for real, is another thing..

What ever the circumstances turn out to be, the pilot's did an EXCELLENT job. :)

[Captainx]

Very simple.


There is loads of speculation of why, lets wait for the facts.


There is loads of comments on how the cabin crew / flight crew operated.

Simple answer.... Bl##dy well.
No one hurt
Aircraft saved


By my rules that is a job well done.

So what If a cabin crew member was hesterical... understandable.

It confirms the old saying any landing you walk away from is a good one.

My boss once told me, in the course of your career you may do things i dont agree with. As long as you are on the ground and safe I dont care, I may bollock you but thats my job.

[aeroguru]

I have joked often about the "pedals" on the A330(footrests)being there for a double engine failure.Seems they work!
Think RR should at least be buying new underwear after this incident. :eek:

[Porky Speedpig]

CaptainX

Absolutely spot on, 5 star, Gold Card comment!

[Oilhead]

What the hell is that plane the skipper is photographed in? All I could make out were four vintqge looking thrust/prop/mixture levers. Whatever it is he is obviously enjoying flying it!

Enquiring minds need answers! The travelling public has a right to know!

[MasterGreen]

Good Call CaptainX. If we could all just stop being Monday Morning QBacks without even knowing the score for a little while...

The bottom line, as many have said, is that here is a major accident that didn't happen. Everyone is around to tell their story and the airplane is intact. The facts will get known quite quickly. Then, if we (pilots / flight professionals) are really smart, we will learn every lesson that we can from them.

Sure it should never have happened at all - but as we all know that can just be the turn of a friendly card sometimes. This is one to watch and learn from. All critique on the crew is null and void until we have the facts.

The only facts I know for sure are that the A330 was mighty sick, that it was brought to a safe (if not totally damage free) landing and no-one was even badly injured.

The only conclusion I can up with right now is that the crew did a damn fine job.

MG

[Vortex what...ouch!]

I take my hat off to the pilots.

A job VERY well done.

nuff said.

[WAIF-er]

Rolling thunder,

("7 out of eight slides deploying is not acceptable or good performance. If there are eight, all eight should deploy. It's called maintenance standards.")

Is rather like saying how do you check if a hand grenade is going to work. You cant.

The only pre-flight check of a slide raft is that the gas bottle pressure is in the green/on the dot.

Your second quote:
("Bursting tyres on touchdown raises an interesting question on braking effectiveness.")

I really dont understand where youre coming from here? Basically, on final approach with no power, those guys literally had to drop in on the runway and give themselves enough tarmac to stop the thing - the flare is an afterthought.

[The Guvnor]

At the risk of getting firebombed again :D :D I'd just like to say that this incident has illustrated perfectly a number of the observations and comments made in the Airline pilots 'lack skills to handle emergencies' (http://www.pprune.org/cgibin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=015041&p=) thread.

On the one hand, it has shown that when the unexpected - and untrained for - happens then there are pilots that do an exemplary job in getting the aircraft down in one piece. Capt Robert Piché did it - but he was also a bush pilot with 20 years of experience on DC6s.

On the other hand, it also confirms what I had said on the thread - that exceptional piloting skills (such as those of a bush pilot) which only come from experience are required. This thread has also thrown up that few, if any, airlines actually train their crews for a double engine failure.

Now, let's take this scenario. Imagine, say, a UK A330 where both pilots have come up the pure airliner route - CAP509 and then straight into an airline environment. They haven't received any training at all for a double flameout. We then have the Air Transat situation happen. Could they get the aircraft down?

I'd like to think so - but I wouldn't bet on it. Would you?

[3holelover]

Wow, I'm now completely aware of the appropriateness of the name of this site!

Some of you would have us believe the a/c left without enough fuel... some would have us believe the fuel was pumped overboard by silly "systems monitors", some would have us believe all the fuel left through some bad mechanic's nostrils, no doubt...

I think only 4 facts are known:

1: It was an Air Transat A330
2: It landed safely with every precious sole alive to tell the tale
3: The truth of it all will be known shortly
4: Some goof/wannabe eggbeater pilot thinks F/A's should be able to take all the abuse of a ship load of frightened people with no fear of their own.

To the crew: My hat is off to you!
To the boys I know at AT: I feel for you!
To those who would lambaste them without any knowledge of truth: Maybe there's some open seats on Aeroflop?
To Mr. Rodrigues: I hope people are kinder to you than you have been to them!

I must say though... It is good to see so many voices of reason in this cauldron of half truth's/rumour, assumption and innuendo.

Cheers,

3hl

[MasterGreen]

Oh Gov - give it a break.

I have worked with and trained a host of pilots with backgrounds various from Mil, through Bush / Ag, through CAP509 and all the variations thereof - and your rather infantile approximations don't work at all.

There are no rules about where "good" pilots come from. Anyone who has been in the business for any amount of time knows this. There are natural pilots and gifted pilots and some who just work really hard at at. There are pilots who are good in the Sim and pilots who are good in the World. Some are both - lucky sods.

Some pilots are lucky and some seem to get all the flak. Some are lazy and survive, some work like hell and don't make it. But just being a bush pilot, or an ex Red Arrow doesn't make the cut - not at all.

Some pilots are good stick and rudder people, some are systems people, some are a combination of the previous and people people too. Once again a lucky few are all of this.

In 1914 they took Officers from the Cav to fly, thinking that an affinity for horses might make them more attuned to the problems of the sensitive airplanes of the day. That was not a winner by a long chalk. - I was going to continue this idea - but I will not. It deserves another thread.

Sure, Bush Pilots (and I deliberately Cap that) are good stick and rudder people. They prove it by being around after a few years. Ag pilots likewise. Mil pilots are nearly always good stick and rudder pilots - their background is pretty solid too. However I do resent the slur on the CAP509s (even though I ain't one).

If you want the single leveller - it is training. You take a BP/Ag/Mil and you have a good handler, but there is a lot of work to get him/her Civ orientated and that price is usually accepted and paid. You get a CAP509 or the equivalent and you have the orientation, but no-one thinks to spend the same amount on giving them the stick skills (which, I will agree - they may well lack, unless they are gifted). And then we expect them to get that skill on line. Give me a break. There is a serious divergence of expectations here.

The industry needs to understand where these people come from and what their strengths and weaknesses are. No one pilot can be all things. It just can't be done. Unless we train them.

And that is not that hard. If you have a willing, motivated, basically skilled soul, it can be done - relatively easily. But our training is all arse about face. We train to a tick on the wall. Nothing more, nothing less. The accountants tell us so. Rather we should take each and every individual pilot and train him/her to be the best (s)he can be.

Costs money.... Not as much as you might think. An awful lot of training is repetitive and wasted. If we could somehow identify the areas that each individual needed then the industry would be a different place.

The big question - what does an individual need ? Funny that - I have found that the best person to ask was the student ....

MG

[ 27 August 2001: Message edited by: MasterGreen ]

[ironbutt57]

One thing for sure....there's two more pairs of knickers that will stick to the wall for a long long time to come ;) ;) ;)

[LAVDUMPER]

Personally, I'd like to see a copy of the voice recordings during this harrowing experience. I bet it was interesting...

It's INSPIRING examples like this one that give me faith in rigorous training programs.

Thanks F/O Junior for the A330 checklist - very, very interesting - I wonder how difficult it would be to concentrate on the checklist in an extremely stressful situation like that one - your training takes over.

WELL DONE to the pilots/FAs involved - I'd like to read their profiles (experience levels) if possible.

Cheers!

[Dan Winterland]

Boring Fact: Lajes airfield is nominated as a Space Shuttle emergency landing field.

I guess the suitability has been proved.

[LAVDUMPER]

Any pictures of the aircraft????????

[planecrazi]

I believe the A330-200 has abiltiy to jettison, not the A330-300 which has a shorter range. It would be interesting to moniter which of the two is consistantly having the a problem with fuel loss. This would make it a little easier to deduce where the problem might be lying.
This was an excellent job performed by the crew. Congratulations!
A340 operator.