PDA

View Full Version : Emergency landing Cathay A330-300


Tediek
13th Apr 2010, 12:55
I read on a dutch aviation news site (www.luchtvaartnieuws.nl (http://www.luchtvaartnieuws.nl)) that an airbus of Cathay made an emergency landing inbound from Surubaya at hong kong airport and some pax were wounded.. any info? the info on the site was very minimum.

sleeper
13th Apr 2010, 13:20
Cathay plane makes emergency landing in Hong Kong (http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/asia/174605/cathay-plane-makes-emergency-landing-in-hong-kong)

"It appeared there were some engine problems that the aircraft experienced on (landing

A lot of hits on google

bereboot
13th Apr 2010, 13:37
Mannen jullie lopen vreselijk achter de feiten aan , kijk eens wat verder , fragrant harbour , zoek funktie misschien !

In english , just told the dutch 'aviators' to look around and use the search function !

On the beach
13th Apr 2010, 14:08
Go to the "Fragrant Harbour" page for more details

On the beach

subsonicsubic
13th Apr 2010, 14:47
No. Dont go to the Fragrant Harbour page!

Did I go to the "Beiruit Beach" page or the "Polish Gossip" page recently?

This is global aviation news and nobody should need to scroll past "Aviation Food Providers"( no disrespect meant) to view news of this incident.

Post here or mods sort this out please.

Best,

SSS

Fly747
13th Apr 2010, 14:57
By all accounts this is another major incident which will give people from Toulouse and Derby lots of investigative work to do.

akerosid
13th Apr 2010, 15:52
Latest from Fragrant Harbour page:

"From a very credible source:

A330 under question is B-HLL, Rolls Royce Engines.
Eng failure 10 min before landing in HKG. Other engine "stuck" at 70% N1 with no response from THR levers, subsequently shut down on final approach as per QRH.

High landing speed, use of parking brake resulting in brakes overheat, tyre burst and fire.

RAT (Ram Air Turbine) NOT deployed."

Got to say that I agree with SSS; this is a major incident; "double engine failure" definitely comes under the heading of "bad things" in the QRH, so it should be on the front page.

SMOC
13th Apr 2010, 16:01
You can see the RAT deployed on the news pics. Apparently it was done manually.

Jetjock330
13th Apr 2010, 18:50
This has happened now to a few Airbus (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/03/12/339432/easa-suspects-dual-engine-icing-in-a330-incident.html) with RR engines, even on Go Around in MAN with a middles east airline!

Engine Roll back is a fancy way of saying they stopped working when they should've been working!

Papa2Charlie
13th Apr 2010, 22:10
jetjock330.....one engine was inop, we do not know the reason for this yet. The other engine was running. There have been no reports of a thrust "roll-back" from Cathay or any other source. A roll-back is failure to deliver the commanded power, it is not a shut down.

Let the engineering teams do the investigation work before jumping to conclusions.

gwillie
14th Apr 2010, 01:00
....one engine was inop,.. The other engine was running... Not according to this upon descent, the second engine repeatedly cut out, meaning the plane effectively glided at high speed towards the airport as the pilots struggled to keep it on course. As the plane was making its final approach over the sea, they managed to get enough thrust in the right hand engine to carry it safely to the runway. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/hongkong/7586332/Pilots-safely-land-Airbus-after-engine-failure.html)

Equally interesting (to me) is that they lost the first engine shortly after departure yet elected to continue a 4 1/2 hour flight on the remaining one ...The two pilots, both Australian, lost the use of the left hand engine shortly after the Cathay Pacific flight CX780 from Indonesia reached cruising altitude after taking off for the four hour 40 minute flight...

PJ2
14th Apr 2010, 02:07
Equally interesting (to me) is that they lost the first engine shortly after departure yet elected to continue a 4 1/2 hour flight on the remaining one
Quote:
...The two pilots, both Australian, lost the use of the left hand engine shortly after the Cathay Pacific flight CX780 from Indonesia reached cruising altitude after taking off for the four hour 40 minute flight...
Failure of one engine on a 4hr+ flight is, all other conditions being normal, a "landing at the nearest suitable airport" and not necessarily a cause for a turn-back or immediate diversion.

An airline's definition of "suitable" would vary with their OpsSpec Manual but would include such basic considerations as the available IFR approaches, runways, ATC facilities, appropriate maintenance facilities and CFR facilities and other considerations such as appropriate jetways or other means to deplane passengers, ground support equipment (electrical/pneumatic), appropriate tow-bar and tractor for push-back, company personnel, customs (where needed) and communications facilities for flight planning.

Not all of these would be available at every airport of course and circumstances vary so it is, as always, the captain's decision and responsibility to manage available resources in coordination with his or her First Officer, in-flight service people, (for duty day issues), the airline's flight dispatch, maintenance and customer service people.

PJ2

HKAforever
14th Apr 2010, 02:38
See pprune's fragrant harbour forum thread for specific details on this incident as well as the latest updates:

http://www.pprune.org/fragrant-harbour/411928-cx-a330-evacuation.html

kotakota
14th Apr 2010, 03:46
There has to be some mistake about flying on 1 engine from TOC to HK , there are plenty of suitable airports on the way , especially Singapore with multiple runways , and KL too.
I expect when the dust settles we will find that the engine problems occurred later in the flight .Otherwise there will be some explaining to do.
Anyway , well done for achieving the runway guys , and best wishes to anybody injured , get well soon.

stilton
14th Apr 2010, 04:01
I cannot believe for a moment this crew would continue on with one engine after losing one / shutting one down shortly after take off on a 4 hour flight.




The facts will come out.

J1J
14th Apr 2010, 05:12
amazing job by the Pilots from what I have read.

One question, this would appear to be similar to the BA038 incident, maybe the same engines ( I am unsure but believe both RR Trents ) and similar reported engine problems at a similar stage of flight.

My ignorance or potential connection?

fox niner
14th Apr 2010, 06:04
Apparently only hong kong is considered a suitable airport for CX. WSSS and WMKK are not good enough for some reason.
These guys have shown some serious flying abilities during the last part of the flight. They might not have gotten in those circumstances if they landed at a nearest suitable airport three hours earlier???
Going to be an interesting one, this incident...

Rice power
14th Apr 2010, 07:13
quote "Apparently only hong kong is considered a suitable airport for CX. WSSS and WMKK are not good enough for some reason."

I is not often I am shocked at the stupidity shown on these forums by some of the posters. I work for cx and can catagorically state this is pure b.s.

mrdeux
14th Apr 2010, 07:20
Apparently only hong kong is considered a suitable airport for CX. WSSS and WMKK are not good enough for some reason.

Neither are anywhere near the Surabaya to HK track.

Setsugetsuka
14th Apr 2010, 07:30
If both engines were failed as some camments say, then the Emer Gen would be powered by the RAT, and therefore no antiskid to the brakes, so having tires go flat would not be surpirsing. All still speculation at this point.

sleeper
14th Apr 2010, 08:24
@ Bereboot.

Kerel,
That's the reason for the remark: A lot of google hits.

clinty83
14th Apr 2010, 08:30
Dont suppose the names of he pilots have been releasd? Just wondering if a skipper I know was involved?

thegoon
14th Apr 2010, 09:04
The tires went flat because crossing the fence at 230 knots gives you hot brakes.

thegoon
14th Apr 2010, 09:13
mrdeux,
WSSS, etc dosen't have to be on the track to HK. Nearest suitable airport just might require a heading change.:ugh:

mrdeux
14th Apr 2010, 10:37
mrdeux,
WSSS, etc dosen't have to be on the track to HK. Nearest suitable airport just might require a heading changeWhat, you mean you can change headings? I didn't say that they weren't on the track. I said they were nowhere near it, and they aren't. They are far enough away that they wouldn't even be considered. Brunei, Saigon, and Manila are different animals.

Bengerman
14th Apr 2010, 10:49
As far as I am aware, going onto one engine on an Airbus causes a red ecam LAND ASAP. No mention of nearest SUITABLE which is always open to interpretation....

muppet in the sky
14th Apr 2010, 11:22
Bengerman,

That is incorrect, on an Airbus, if the ECAM indicates an ENG FIRE, then the LAND ASAP is in red. On an ENG FAIL, it indicates LAND ASAP in amber.

LAND ASAP Red as per FCOM 3, the pilot should land at the nearest suitable airport. LAND ASAP Amber, the crew should consider the seriousness of the situation, and select a suitable airport.

Jorocketoz
14th Apr 2010, 12:22
It seems stilton (http://www.pprune.org/members/87315-stilton) was right,
According to abc news in australia "Cathay Pacific said in a statement that the plane's left engine had shut down as the aircraft made its landing approach at Hong Kong's international airport on Tuesday with 309 passengers on a flight from Surabaya in Indonesia.
The right engine also began to "cut out inexplicably, leaving the [pilots] to cope with dips and surges in power and the prospect of the plane plunging into the sea short of [the airport]," the South China Morning Post reported."

RedCup
14th Apr 2010, 13:56
Ravi30,

Can you please show me the fuel dump switches on the A330? Haven't found them after 10 years on this jet. Stick to your computer games clown.

beardy
14th Apr 2010, 14:19
Redcup,

we have fuel dump on all of ours, it is an option.

404 Titan
14th Apr 2010, 14:54
There are some extremely lazy posters on this tread who obviously canít be bothered reading the thread on Fragrant Harbour or going to the Cathay Pacific web site. If you had you would soon realise that the failures didnít materialise until top of descent into Hong Kong CLK. I can assure you though that no Cathay Pacific pilot would ever fly past a suitable airport in a twin if we had an engine shut down.

A330 Evac (http://www.pprune.org/fragrant-harbour/411928-cx-a330-evacuation.html)

CX Press Release Details (http://www.cathaypacific.com/cpa/en_INTL/aboutus/pressroomdetails?refID=b4d6b987a8bf7210VgnVCM62000007d21c39_ ___)

nike
14th Apr 2010, 15:07
You bet me to it Titan.

Jim Henson would be proud to see so many muppets are still out there.

grimmrad
14th Apr 2010, 15:15
After the usual disclaimer that I am only a SLF and reading the press release I may add that for me the crew seems to have handled it very well. What I find even more impressive though is this: "The company was now offering to refund all passengers tickets and offer them a free regional flight."
Can you imagine that here in the land of the free? From United or UsAir...? Well, I guess you get what you pay for.

CONF iture
14th Apr 2010, 15:23
He said it had been determined that the number 2 (RH) engine was at idle power throughout the approach and landing at HKIA, and the Number 1(LH) engine was operating at 70 per cent of its maximum power, and frozen at that level.
Does it mean ENG 1 could not be shut down trough ENG MASTER ... and maybe relighted as soon after ... could it be possibly just another temporary computer whim ?

lomapaseo
14th Apr 2010, 15:42
The arguments and opinions that I have been reading in this thread seem to be presumptious of the facts.

There is a difference between "an engine problem", an engine failure and an engine that needs to be shutdown. Part of this are engine out of limits ECAM warnings requiring a pilot action and/or discretionary action by the pilot to simply retard the throttle.

To divert or not divert has to consider what are the facts as the pilot sees them and not what the press says or we imagine.

To me it's a complete waste of time for us to second guess decisions when we don't have access to the DFDR.

Of course I'm still interested in whether this was a common fault, independant faults, engine performance faults or aircrat or engine electronic control functions.

PJ2
14th Apr 2010, 16:52
Caution for readers: The following is a discussion point and is neither a theory nor a speculation.

I am sure that we will hear more after the results of the news conference which was supposed to be held Wednesday afternoon in Hong Kong, are made available.

CONF iture;
Does it mean ENG 1 could not be shut down trough ENG MASTER ... and maybe relighted as soon after ... could it be possibly just another temporary computer whim ? Well, computers don't have 'whims' but "what's it doing now?" is a familiar phrase... ;-)

I've been looking through some manuals. For the A320, do you recall an ENG THR LEVER FAULT QRH procedure? The same procedure is in the A330 QRH. From what has been released thus far, it seems that one engine was shut down and the other was stuck at an setting between IDLE and CLB. While there seems little in common between the A330 event and this fault it is the closest fault I can find on a quick inspection. There is another fault, ENG 1(2) EPR MODE FAULT, which requires the use of manual thrust but does not require an engine shutdown.

I think the software has long since been modified but one time this fault required an autoland with autothrust engaged so that the autoflight system could control the engine thrust. The QRH alternative was to shut the engine down. There are various thrust levels at which the engine is 'stuck' depending upon ground or flight, slats extended or retracted, thrust lever position, (TOGA, FLEX/MCT, CLB or somewhere between CLB and IDLE).

In the current QRH procedure, the autothrust is left engaged and it is stated that FADEC will control the engine thrust but in this case it seems that this was not possible and that apparently the only option was to shut the remaining engine down once the field was assured.

PJ2

CONF iture
14th Apr 2010, 18:35
From what has been released thus far, it seems that one engine was shut down and the other was stuck at an setting between IDLE and CLB.
PJ2, I believe you didn't get the chance to read the Cathay Pacific updates CX780 incident - 14 April 2010 (http://www.cathaypacific.com/cpa/en_INTL/aboutus/pressroomdetails?refID=b4d6b987a8bf7210VgnVCM62000007d21c39_ ___)


It seems that the ENG THR LEVER FAULT is a ECAM procedure but not a QRH one.
Is it also possible that an engine frozen at a level of power won't trigger any kind of ECAM message ... the crew would have to improvise !?

bfisk
14th Apr 2010, 19:24
Seems like an extremely good job by both the flight crew (for bringing it safely down), and the cabin crew alike (for evacuating in 2 minutes).

PJ2
14th Apr 2010, 22:29
CONF iture;
It seems that the ENG THR LEVER FAULT is a ECAM procedure but not a QRH one.
Thanks - I was reading the abnormal from the FCOM and in my mind substituted/typed "QRH" - its in the paper version of the ECAM drills and does show up on the ECAM.
Is it also possible that an engine frozen at a level of power won't trigger any kind of ECAM messageWell I think that depends upon the failure. As you know from your A320 FCOM/Vol.1/Abnormals/Power Plant there are many ENG abnormals; a few of them, such as the example offered, will freeze or limit thrust and yes, that would be, through the FWC, announced on the lower ECAM, and, ... the crew would have to improvise !?This isn't an irrational airplane no more than we can say that the B777/B767/A310/MD11 are. Designers and engineers of software and hardware are good at what they do. The airplane isn't perfect but no airplane is, and if something is broken or the airplane is abused beyond its certification limits it will behave just as any engineered system would, within the laws of physics. So....engine thrust isn't frozen/limited without cause; just as the airplane is handed over to humans when it no longer has sufficient information upon which to guide/limit its flight, it is almost always because FADEC does not have sufficient information to govern/provide engine thrust. THR LK is another message which comes on in Alphaprot and requires active flight crew intervention.

All that said, it is an airplane and we are pilots. Where demanded by rare circumstances such as unanticipated/unwritten failures, flight crews can and clearly do, improvise; I suspect the guys who landed the JetBlue A320 with the cocked nosewheel 'improvised' because there is no ECAM for "Cocked Nosewheel". The QRH drill for dual engine failure is long but I suspect Sully and his F/O had to improvise in the three-plus minutes they had to ditch. In response to warnings, (which we later found out were false), with maintenance concurrence I have had to improvise in an A330 in order to prevent a far more serious situation from unfolding. So it can occur and improvisation, with knowledge/experience, may be required; this is aviation, after all, not a UAV...yet. In our case it was absolutely not due to the design of the warnings or engines or the airplane.

With regard to the ENG THR LEVER FAULT and the ENG THR LEVER DISAGREE the drill was either autoland the airplane or shut the engine down at 500ftRA because the moment the autopilot was disconnected the engine thrust would be commanded as if the thrust lever were in the CLB position, (depending of course, when the failure occurred). That is now changed and one does not need to autoland the airplane but must use the autothrust. It used to be a simulator favourite...

regards,

PJ2

keesje
14th Apr 2010, 22:55
This higher thrust setting on the left-hand engine resulted in a landing at 230kt, with an incorrect flap configuration

230kt, :eek: , I'm happy I was not at that aircraft..

Motorola
14th Apr 2010, 22:58
How can you say it's not an irrational aeroplane?

Any aeroplane that you might have to engage the autopilot to get you out of trouble is irrational to me.

A recent Airbus fatal runway excursion in South America was caused by the thrust lever system design.

Too many Airbuses are going off doing their own thing.

PJ2
14th Apr 2010, 23:30
Motorola;
How can you say it's not an irrational aeroplane?

Any aeroplane that you might have to engage the autopilot to get you out of trouble is irrational to me.

A recent Airbus fatal runway excursion in South America was caused by the thrust lever system design.

Too many Airbuses are going off doing their own thing.
Well, if you can provide us with your notion of "too many" by citing Airbus accidents that support your claim that the airplane is indeed 'irrational' and doing its own thing in spite of a flight crews' best efforts to deny the airplane its 'will', I will concede your point. I accept that the example of QF72 may qualify but so far that is a once-off. In your argument you need to keep in mind that there are roughly an equal number of counter-examples of other types which have been in accidents and there is the much larger set of counter-examples which includes all types in the multi-millions of transport flights which never made headlines and which instead completed their missions uneventfully.

For your statement to be true, you need to show that Airbus is a distinct outlier in the accident record and then you need to show that the cause of such accident(s) was specific to the Airbus design and that such cause did not occur in any of the counter-example accidents.

I don't think this is possible because the published accident record will not support the point.

If I may, it is this kind of uninformed, off-handed anti-Airbus sentiment that motivates this response, not a "pro-Airbus" bias or stance which claims the Airbus can do no wrong. I have flown both types for years and they both work extremely well. Both Airbus and their design may warrant strong criticism (and I have done so in other venues and while flying them), but here at least, any criticism must be both informed and clearly stated.

Over to you.

PJ2

lomapaseo
15th Apr 2010, 00:53
Any aeroplane that you might have to engage the autopilot to get you out of trouble is irrational to me.


failure modes have consequences. Too little thrust and you are a glider. Too much thrust and you have to be able to turn it off or use breaking actions. Either way the designer has already anticipated the workload and in an attempt to lessen the workload has developed procedures in concert with the capability of the aircraft systems. If you don't like the system as recommended you can always go back to what you would have done in a legacy B737

CONF iture
15th Apr 2010, 01:50
PJ2,
My last post was not a critic of the airplane, not this time at least ;) but merely a neutral comment.
When time permits, it could be interesting to hear more about your false warnings experience on the 330 ... ?


On the Fragant Harbour side, it seems we're not at the end of the story yet ...............

PJ2
15th Apr 2010, 02:35
CONF iture, I hasten to add, nor did I see it that way - my response was just a way of 'carrying on the dialogue', as it were. ;-)

Believe me, there is much to criticize in the Airbus design but no other manufacturer gets off lightly either, although I do like Boeing's bread-and-butterness...Wonder what the B787 will be like in this regard?

Will pm the rest. Will also take a look at Fragrant Harbour, thank you. - PJ2

protectthehornet
15th Apr 2010, 04:15
does it make sense to do some sort of engine response functional check during the descent, say prior to 10,000' agl?

at least if the engine didn't respond, you would have a few more seconds to look for a place to land.

grizzled
15th Apr 2010, 15:22
pth...

re your comments about adding thrust at some point during descent -- didn't that become SOP in certain situations for Trent powered 777s after BA038? Or am I imagining again...?
Anybody?

Analyser
15th Apr 2010, 17:54
Super job by the flight crew.
Cathay have corrected their previous statement and said that the right Rolls Royce trent 700 was at idle during the entire approach and the left one was stuck at 70%.Also at no point were both engines shut down during flight.

From some posts that I have read lets not make this into another Airbus bashing forum :ugh:

Robert Campbell
15th Apr 2010, 20:53
If you don't like the system as recommended you can always go back to what you would have done in a legacy B737

Will the bus let you?

ChrisVJ
15th Apr 2010, 22:38
Sounds as though the guys at Airbus need to give Toyota a quick call.

puffinbub
16th Apr 2010, 00:57
Exactly if they had engine trouble just after TOC, what the hell were they doing carrying on to Hkg.

FlyBoy737800
16th Apr 2010, 03:24
Airbusís beleaguered A330 - has had yet another, failure !!
This time in Hong Kong. Thanks to the skills of the two Aussie Boys upfront, they got this, heap of . . "airplane", down safely.

The Air France A330 that crashed into the South Atlantic has not been located.
The tragic crashes, incidents and shortcomings of this lemon just keep happening.
- FlyBoy737800

arba
16th Apr 2010, 03:33
Sounds as though the guys at Airbus need to give Toyota a quick call

is the pilot's car Toyota Prius ?

iceman50
16th Apr 2010, 04:12
I see the TROLL is back.:ugh::ugh:

Fatfish
16th Apr 2010, 04:20
Hmm! Not shutting down the troubled engine to land at 230 knts for an EVAC. Am I missing something here? :confused:

Harbour Dweller
16th Apr 2010, 06:01
Hmm! Not shutting down the troubled engine to land at 230 knts for an EVAC. Am I missing something here? http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/confused.gif

Try reading the press release from Cathay. There is a link on post #41.

Fatfish
16th Apr 2010, 09:44
Thanks. Yes, I read it but am still puzzled. Wouldnt a planned single engine approach be a better option. Maybe other factors were in play here. :confused:

404 Titan
16th Apr 2010, 10:59
Fatfish

One engine was stuck at sub-idle power from TOD and the other was stuck at 70% power. What would be the point of shutting any engine down? You shut the one down at 70% and you are ditching. You shut the other down and you are depriving yourself of a source of bleed, hydraulic and electrical power. You are only complicating things when you eliminate a source of these services. Think spoilers, flap speed, gear speed etc.

Whatsit Doingnow
16th Apr 2010, 11:05
Go to the "Fragrant Harbour" page for more details
Yeah right, go to the Fragrant Harbour page and listen to all the CX morons rave on about how superior they are to all the other pilots in the world and that any other airline would have crashed in the same scenario.

404 Titan
16th Apr 2010, 11:37
Whatsit Doingnow

I think you will find CX pilots donít think that at all and the two gentlemen that landed our A330 the other day would be embarrassed by those comments.

obie2
16th Apr 2010, 11:38
Hey!...newboy!...

don't hold back...

why don't you tell us what you really think!!

Wod
16th Apr 2010, 12:35
He's a relative of FlyBoy737800 - or a clone

Fatfish
16th Apr 2010, 14:56
Titan
One engine stuck at Idle Power makes it very different from the CX statement that one engine was at Idle Power on landing. So they had duel engine problems. Thank you for the clearification. I knew I was missing something. Great job. :ok:

FlyBoy737800
17th Apr 2010, 02:13
" So they had duel engine problems."

The beleaguered Airbus A330 Just has problems generally, lots of em. :mad:

nitpicker330
17th Apr 2010, 02:38
Yeah right, go to the Fragrant Harbour page and listen to all the CX morons rave on about how superior they are to all the other pilots in the world and that any other airline would have crashed in the same scenario.

As a CX Pilot I cringed when I read those words in the SCMP from what they said was a CX Pilot.....

CONF iture
20th Apr 2010, 14:24
There are some extremely lazy posters on this tread who obviously canít be bothered reading the thread on Fragrant Harbour or going to the Cathay Pacific web site. If you had you would soon realise that the failures didnít materialise until top of descent into Hong Kong CLK. I can assure you though that no Cathay Pacific pilot would ever fly past a suitable airport in a twin if we had an engine shut down.

A330 Evac (http://www.pprune.org/fragrant-harbour/411928-cx-a330-evacuation.html)

CX Press Release Details (http://redirectingat.com/?id=42X487496&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cathaypacific.com%2Fcpa%2Fen_INTL%2Fabo utus%2Fpressroomdetails%3FrefID%3Db4d6b987a8bf7210VgnVCM6200 0007d21c39____&sref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pprune.org%2Frumours-news%2F411959-emergency-landing-cathay-a330-300-a-2.html)

I try not to be lazy but obviously the mentioned thread has just vanished ... ?

http://www.pprune.org/fragrant-harbour/411928-cx-a330-evacuation.html
pprune.org/fragrant-harbour/411928-cx-a330-evacuation.html

slatibatfast
20th Apr 2010, 17:49
We know that one engine was stuck at 70%. But do we know that the other was stuck at sub ildle power as has been suggested on this thread? The Cathay Pacific press release was ambiguous on this point.

Farrell
20th Apr 2010, 19:00
iceman50

I see the TROLL is back.

TROLL-BACK!!!! Mwahahaah!


(I'm here all week!)

Molokai
21st Apr 2010, 00:48
I try not to be lazy but obviously the mentioned thread has just vanished ... ?

CX A330 evacuation (http://www.pprune.org/fragrant-harbour/411928-cx-a330-evacuation.html)
PPRuNe.org/fragrant-harbour/411928-cx-a330-evacuation.html

Wonder why? Some very inconvenient truth perhaps?

This is indeed very odd.

PLovett
21st Apr 2010, 05:11
I suspect that the thread was removed by the initiator as it had degenerated into a slanging match. :ugh:

PLovett
21st Apr 2010, 09:50
Thank you for copying that over studi as it is the most complete precis of what occurred that I have read. :ok:

The Fragrant Harbour thread was a mess of misinformation, quotes from the South China Morning Post and Cathay press releases combined with the usual to and fro of competing egos that it was impossible to get a clear picture of the event. :mad:

Jetjock330
21st Apr 2010, 09:59
This email arrived from Toulouse, to all operators.



DUAL LOSS OF THRUST CONTROL.

FROM : AIRBUS CUSTOMER SERVICES TOULOUSE

TO : ALL A330 GE PW RR OPERATORS



OPERATORS INFORMATION TELEX - OPERATORS INFORMATION TELEX

TO: A330 OPERATORS

SUBJECT: ATA 71 - ENG 1 STALL ECAM MESSAGE AND ENG 2 STALL ECAM MESSAGE,
DUAL LOSS OF THRUST CONTROL

OUR REF: *********, DATED April 16, 2010

CLASSIFICATION: AIRWORTHINESS

1. PURPOSE

The purpose of this telex is to report an event of engine 1 ECAM stall
message and engine 2 ECAM stall message followed by loss of thrust
control
on both engines.

2. DESCRIPTION

During approach, Eng 1 & 2 Control System faults, Eng 1 Stall and Eng 2
Stall ECAM messages were set. The ECAM Stall message is normally
associated with an engine compressor surge.

The engines did not respond correctly to throttle commands. Autothrottle
was disengaged. At this point engine 1 was operating above idle and
engine
2 was operating sub-idle. The crew issued a Mayday emergency call and
made
an emergency landing during which the engine 1 cowling scraped the
runway.

Upon landing the fire services attended the aircraft; due to concerns
regarding smoke from the wheels and brakes an emergency evacuation of
the
aircraft was commanded.

The event is under investigation by the Hong Kong Civil Aviation
Department
assisted by the UK Air Accident Investigation Branch (AAIB), the French
Air
Accident Bureau (BEA), Airbus and Rolls-Royce.

3. ANALYSIS

PFR, DAR/DFDR and ACMS report data is being analysed by the
investigation
team and fuel samples have been sent to the laboratory for analysis. In
addition the FMU's will be removed and returned to the Supplier for
investigation.
The investigation will examine all aspects related to the flight.

Based on the current analysis, Airbus and Rolls-Royce consider that, at
this stage in the investigation, there is no immediate fleetwide action
required.

4. FOLLOW-UP PLAN

Airbus will update this OIT when final results from the analysis are
available or by end of June 10 at the latest subject to agreement from
the
investigating authority.

CONF iture
21st Apr 2010, 11:37
The Fragrant Harbour thread was a mess of misinformation, quotes from the South China Morning Post and Cathay press releases combined with the usual to and fro of competing egos that it was impossible to get a clear picture of the event.
Did the words from Toulouse improve the clarity ... ? :hmm:

PLovett
21st Apr 2010, 13:21
No but the CX Company News Bulletin did - finally.

lomapaseo
21st Apr 2010, 14:56
Thank you for copying that over studi as it is the most complete precis of what occurred that I have read.

The Fragrant Harbour thread was a mess of misinformation, quotes from the South China Morning Post and Cathay press releases combined with the usual to and fro of competing egos that it was impossible to get a clear picture of the event.

I agree with that assessment.

It's not helpful to be redirected away from a docile and informative thread to a slagging match among egos.

:hmm:

CONF iture
22nd Apr 2010, 02:50
I suspect that the thread was removed by the initiator as it had degenerated into a slanging match.
As I was one of the last one, if not the last to post on this thread, I can say there was nothing really to justify that premature and total disappearance ...


Anyway, to stay with the subject, and as indirectly suggested by the Airbus OIT, it seems logical to suspect that both FMU's found something in the fuel they didn't like. Is there any mechanical part in those units that could have totally seized after 4 hours of this flight ?

The Airbus OIT makes absolutely no mention of some kind of ECAM or parameters fluctuations during the early part of the CRZ phase (?) ... but the message addressed to the CX Airbus Cockpit Crews does. Knowing what we know now, this can be a lesson for next time an engine tries to give early signs even if it's nothing more than the boring ENG MINOR FAULT ECAM MSG.

lomapaseo
22nd Apr 2010, 03:25
Anyway, to stay with the subject, and as indirectly suggested by the Airbus OIT, it seems logical to suspect that both FMU's found something in the fuel they didn't like. Is there any mechanical part in those units that could have totally seized after 4 hours of this flight ?


It's near universal to protect the controlling innards of the FMU from fuel contamination by virtue of filters relying on fail-safe (at last commanded power) should things go south.

I'm anxious to follow the factual releases on this incident from RR and Airbus.

Fatfish
22nd Apr 2010, 03:37
Quote: 'FMU's found something in the fuel they didn't like'
If this is the case, LASAP with an Engine flactuating on a two eng op would be best, I think. I guess thats why we have ETOPS. :bored:

paweas
22nd Apr 2010, 03:44
Can an Airbus pilot confirm how its possible to flare and land an A330 @230kt with an engine jammed @ 70% and one at idle without digging a awfully big hole in the runway or floating down the length of the runway available, if im even15 knots over in a small single the aircraft floats for an eternity how is it possible ?

Spadhampton
22nd Apr 2010, 04:37
a "run-on landing". You land and then run on for awhile.

CONF iture
22nd Apr 2010, 12:57
Can an Airbus pilot confirm how its possible to flare and land an A330 @230kt with an engine jammed @ 70% and one at idle without digging a awfully big hole in the runway or floating down the length of the runway available, if im even15 knots over in a small single the aircraft floats for an eternity how is it possible ?
Credit to the crew as they did it and so without simulator pre training Ė That the live engine cowling scraped the runway makes sense. There must be a video somewhere of the event Ö letís wait and see.

Robert Campbell
22nd Apr 2010, 20:58
That's an emergency maneuver for loss of tail rotor. Those pedals on the floor do different things in helicopters. They control that little anti torque sideways rotor in the back.

If the helicopter has enough forward speed in cruise, and the power remains static, the pedals are neutral. Add or decrease power, those pedals become necessary.

A run on landing scrapes lots of metal off the skids. The point is to land fast enough to keep the helicopter level and facing forward. If it turns sideways and falls over , those big ol' whirling blades tend to do a lot of damage.


____________


Seriously, why couldn't the 70% N1 engine be shut down just before touchdown, or, perhaps, a little sooner? Was the other engine which was slightly below zero thrust not producing enough power for flaps, brakes, and other necessary or desirable items?

DJ77
22nd Apr 2010, 22:57
I heard that some RR engines have stall detection and that when a stall condition is sensed the FADEC runs the engine at idle until shutdown. The Airbus telex says that both engines displayed stall messages on ECAM.

Is there something to prevent both engines stuck at idle as a result of dual stall detection? Would shutting down and restarting an idling engine possibly restore its functionnality?

lomapaseo
22nd Apr 2010, 23:50
I heard that some RR engines have stall detection and that when a stall condition is sensed the FADEC runs the engine at idle until shutdown. The Airbus telex says that both engines displayed stall messages on ECAM.

Is there something to prevent both engines stuck at idle as a result of dual stall detection? Would shutting down and restarting an idling engine possibly restore its functionnality?

Can somebody convert this to fact or fiction, other than "I heard...."

CONF iture
23rd Apr 2010, 01:22
From the FCOM :
Following a stall detection by the FADEC, fuel is adjusted.
Fuel/Air ratio is automatically decreased until the stall disappears.

potteroomore
23rd Apr 2010, 02:39
Having read most of the associated posts on this subject in the HKG forum and here, I tend to agree with molokai that there certainly seems to be an " inconvenient truth " in this episode. Well the aircraft finished up in one piece and everyone is safe; the crew had done their job. However, some quarters had gone overboard and prematurely declared them " heroes " which really did the crew a disservice......amongst pilots, the long knives are drawn.

lomapaseo
23rd Apr 2010, 03:05
From the FCOM :
Following a stall detection by the FADEC, fuel is adjusted.
Fuel/Air ratio is automatically decreased until the stall disappears.

OK, that's pretty standard boilerplate for FADEC. But it's a long way off from explaining the rest of the rumor:)

Tipsy Barossa
24th Apr 2010, 06:22
Quote:
Originally Posted by PLovett
I suspect that the thread was removed by the initiator as it had degenerated into a slanging match.

As I was one of the last one, if not the last to post on this thread, I can say there was nothing really to justify that premature and total disappearance ...


I suspect the initiator wised up to the fact that it could harm the crew once the difficult questions start coming in. The crew did their job of bringing the plane down safely but the accolades heaped on them by certain quarters were way over the top. Have to agree with potteroo's view.

FullWings
24th Apr 2010, 08:26
The crew did their job of bringing the plane down safely but the accolades heaped on them by certain quarters were way over the top. Have to agree with potteroo's view.
Yes, I'd agree with that. A nasty situation to be presented with near the end of a flight.

The initial statement says the aircraft stopped "within 1,000' of the threshold" on a 12,500' runway... A little more speed on touchdown and there'd have been a good chance of going off the end into the sea.

A330 drivers: what sort of power do you need, OEI, fully configured on a 3deg slope at an average landing weight?

nitpicker330
24th Apr 2010, 11:51
Full wings......... A330 with 2 Engines Config Full:- 46% N1
1 Engine Config 3:- 56% N1

I posted this on Fragrant Harbour:

The word on the street ( in Cathay City ) from those in the know is that the crew did an exceptional job getting it to the Runway in one piece. The FACT they walked away unharmed speaks volumes in itself. At one point a ditching was on the cards well short of CLK.

So please cutout all this crap and move along.

The official report will come out in due course, be patient.

vapilot2004
24th Apr 2010, 17:15
One wonders if they had to go to alternate or direct law...

Has this sort of thing happened in another type recently and how did that go?

misd-agin
27th Apr 2010, 02:03
Saw that one engine was stuck in a 'sub idle' stall. Years ago our company had at least one similar event. Unfortunately it happened to both engines. Shut down one engine, restarted, and it operated normally. Second engine was then shut down and restarted. Again, normal ops(with higher heart beats in the cockpit).

Flew with engine anti ice on during all descents(higher idle speed) until the engine FCU's could be reprogrammed.

CONF iture
27th Apr 2010, 16:25
I heard that some RR engines have stall detection and that when a stall condition is sensed the FADEC runs the engine at idle until shutdown. The Airbus telex says that both engines displayed stall messages on ECAM.
Is there something to prevent both engines stuck at idle as a result of dual stall detection? Would shutting down and restarting an idling engine possibly restore its functionnality?

Lomapaseo,
Earlier, I was quoting the FCOM here (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/411959-emergency-landing-cathay-a330-300-a-5.html#post5653447) but I just came up on another piece of info from the same FCOM :
Protection against fan stall :
- Stall recovery logic : When a fan stall is detected, a logic is triggered to clear this fan stall. The fuel flow is forced to idle and remains idle until engine shut down.
The perpetual FCOM challenge : If you read something one day, be prepared not to find it when looking for it ...

lomapaseo
27th Apr 2010, 17:18
CONF iture

Protection against fan stall :
- Stall recovery logic : When a fan stall is detected, a logic is triggered to clear this fan stall. The fuel flow is forced to idle and remains idle until engine shut down.

That one one does puzzle me:confused:

I could always understand the reduction in FF to clear most stalls, the easiest of which to clear is a fan stall, but why force the engine to be shutdown to clear the FCU and regain control.

Ah, I bet somebody has an explanation and I may learn something :)

jcarlosgon
27th Apr 2010, 17:35
Originally Posted by DJ77
ďI heard that some RR engines have stall detection and that when a stall condition is sensed the FADEC runs the engine at idle until shutdown. The Airbus telex says that both engines displayed stall messages on ECAM.
Is there something to prevent both engines stuck at idle as a result of dual stall detection?(...)Ē

There should be. The F-86F, had it, called something like Emergency Fuel Control Unit, sort of an almost direct fuel tap. It worked fine, unless you jerked the throttle lever.

A FADEC emergency manual override might (ATT: might) have prevented a few events, like the B777 in London, the A320 in NY City, this one in HK, Eurofighter (?) in Spain, at least, according to their stories.

A Flight Law emergency manual override welcome in Airbuses as well. Humans could select direct law; or, the computers could select the law they liked, when allowed to do so by humans Ė Iíve read the B777 has push button for that.

CONF iture
28th Apr 2010, 02:33
How an engine can be stuck at 70% N1 ?


Is it the FADEC having a go on its own and sending the wrong request ?
Is it the Fuel Metering Valve being mechanically blocked ?
..................... ?

http://i65.servimg.com/u/f65/11/75/17/84/cx_02210.gif (http://www.servimg.com/image_preview.php?i=54&u=11751784)

Is there any known case of an engine to be stuck at such high thrust setting ?

Kalistan
28th Apr 2010, 05:01
Patiently waiting for the true facts to be out; how long is it gonna be?

Like someone had mentioned, some difficult questions will soon come with regards to the scarebus systems and the crew members' actions.

CONF iture
29th Apr 2010, 03:00
Kalistan,

The crew had to deal with erratic responses from both engines, probably not knowing what to expect next ... ?
Also, IF this event is a consequence of fuel contamination (?) any type of aircraft would have probably suffered the same way.

But as you say, let's wait for the complete version of the facts ...


Fuel contamination can be a very critical factor in the everyday operation.
In the following video they show what kind of precaution they take before refueling Air Force One (3:30 in the video)

TGgtSMZKdK0&feature=related

lomapaseo
29th Apr 2010, 13:27
Fuel contamination can be a very critical factor in the everyday operation.


I've got to admit that it sure does cross one's mind in many incidents with misbehaving engines, although I can't think of any confirmations in a couple of decades

Multiple engine events are almost always common-cause inspite of what most imagine flying ETOPs routes with only two engines. And indeed wear out modes or computer cock ups would be extremely rare in a single flight without having been exposed by numerous write ups in a fleets history.

Most everything now-a-days having to do with complex aircraft system interactions has been considered and "fail safed" to the point where the aircraft just won't fall out of the sky albeit the pilot workload may be increased. This seems to be the case here so I'm still open to some of the responses being secondary to a fail-safe design response kicking in from whatever was the common cause that started it.

I'm sure that they are going to look at the aircraft system interaction with the engines very closely seeing as how the engines didn't seem to pack it up with parts out the tailpipe.

I sure hope some more clues come into this thread eventually

CONF iture
30th Apr 2010, 00:40
Something I had not noticed before, but QRH and ECAM procedure for ENG STALL as mentioned here (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/411959-emergency-landing-cathay-a330-300-a-5.html#post5653447) made the object of a TEMPORARY REVISION in JUL 2009 :

http://i65.servimg.com/u/f65/11/75/17/84/cx_02410.gif (http://www.servimg.com/image_preview.php?i=55&u=11751784)

Willit Run
30th Apr 2010, 16:36
Electronic Engine controls are good for the most part, but what happens if one of the base parameters becomes disconnected from the EEC computer?? The EEC will do what it wants, including go to a subidle state, (if thats what it thinks it should do) and there is nothing a pilot can do about it. How do I know? it happened to me! (on a boeing).

Bleve
2nd May 2010, 00:40
The EEC will do what it wants, including go to a subidle state, (if thats what it thinks it should do) and there is nothing a pilot can do about it.Ummm, on my Boeing we can turn the EEC off and get direct thrust lever control of the engine.

Helicopter doctor
5th May 2010, 02:44
Received this this morning from a former airline pilot friend of mine.....

Pertaminaís Avtur Fuel Remains under Investigation
An investigation team formed by the Ministry of Transportation continues to investigate a case related to poor quality of aviation turbine (avtur) fuels sold by PT Pertamina, which caused a damage to airbus A330 owned by Cathay Pacific Airways that landed in Hong Kong Airport on April 13, 2010. The team is analyzing the quality of avtur fuel owned by PT Pertamina in the Juanda Airport, Surabaya. One of the objects subject to investigation is avtur fuel storage in the airport. Director of Certification of Aviation Worthiness Yuris Hasibuan said that Pertamina, National Committee for Transportation Safety (KNKT) and the Directorate General of Air Transportation has investigated the avtur fuel, with avtur fuel sent to a laboratory for further analysis.(Kontan Daily, 3/5)

Freehills
6th May 2010, 08:46
CAD preliminary report now out

http://www.cad.gov.hk/reports/AB-01-2010e.pdf

Helicopter doctor
13th Aug 2010, 06:22
From yesterday's Aviation Herald.

Accident: Cathay A333 at Hong Kong on Apr 13th 2010, engine stuck at high thrust

By Simon Hradecky, created Wednesday, Aug 11th 2010 10:16Z, last updated Wednesday, Aug 11th 2010 10:16ZIn a new preliminary report (http://www.cad.gov.hk/reports/AB-03-2010e.pdf) Hong Kong's Civil Aviation Department (CAD) said, that the engine fuel components, relevant fuel samples and monitor filters in the vessel of the dispenser refueling the aircraft in Surabaya were collected and sent to the UK for analysis. Flight data and cockpit voice recorders were read out.

An examination of the engine fuel components showed, that the main metering valves (MMV) of the fuel metering units (FMU) were seized, the left at a position consistent with the 70% N1 of the left hand engine, the right hand at a position consistent with the 17% N1 achieved by the right hand engine. The right hand engine's variable stator vane controller (VSVC) was also found seized.

Fine spherical particles (spheres) were found in the FMU, VSVC and variable stator vane actuator (VSVA) of both engines. No fault has been observed to any component other than those associated with the contamination by spheres. The spheres could not be generated from within the airframe or engine systems under normal operating conditions and environment.

The fuel samples also showed contaminations with such spheres.

The monitor fuel filters from the dispenser also showed traces of such spheres, spheres were also found in fuel samples taken downstream of the monitor filters. The spheres appeared similiar to those found on the aircraft.

The exact nature of the spheres is still under investigation.

The flight data recorders and quick access recorders as well as aircraft monitoring system showed no abnormal commands sent from the electronic engine control or autothrust system. The abnormal engine condition therefore is believed to be the result of the contamination with spheres leading to the seizure of the MMVs.

The aircraft had loaded 24400 kg of fuel from Surabaya's hydrant refuelling at stand 8, which was part of a circuit refuelling stands 1 to 10. Prior to the event there had been extensive work on that circuit as part of the Surabaya Airport extension project. The refueling circuit was isolated for the investigation.

Inspection of the refuelling circuit revealed, that some of the re-commissioning procedures were not in line with guidelines and practises commonly used in the aviation industry. The re-commissioning had not been completed when B-HLL and other aircraft were already being refueled from that circuit.

Doc

pax2908
13th Aug 2010, 06:34
But how many a/c would have been refueled there, around that time, and also until the circuit was isolated / taken out of service?

TyroPicard
13th Aug 2010, 19:09
Perhaps they were unlucky and collected all the spheres in one go - presumably further contamination of the circuit did not occur.

Dani
13th Aug 2010, 19:30
So, what are spheres exactly? Are they made of metal or of stones or other materials? Are these commonly knows as chips? What is the possible source of this? I have never heard of this and cannot imagine what happened exactly.

Thanks for any hint,
Dani

llagonne66
13th Aug 2010, 21:20
So much for all those A330 bashers ....

mm43
13th Aug 2010, 21:51
Inspection of the refuelling circuit revealed, that some of the re-commissioning procedures were not in line with guidelines and practises commonly used in the aviation industry. The re-commissioning had not been completed when B-HLL and other aircraft were already being refueled from that circuit.

My initial reaction is that the contaminating spheres are actually weld splatter. In other words the line had not been flushed correctly following repairs, and neither was a filter test done.

mm43

Helicopter doctor
14th Aug 2010, 06:32
This poor commissioning of the fuel system is a fairly typical occurrence based in a lack of awareness of standards or a disregarding of standards. Pertamina are generally very good at following routine procedures, however I imagine work like this would be in the hands of a contractor with little knowledge of what was required to ensure serviceability before the system was put back into service after completion of work.

An example is the airport of Sepinggan, East Kalimantan, where an underground fuel system was installed during airport reconstruction about 15 years ago. The piping used was galvanized, which is a no-no. The system was condemned and never used, however the aprons were completed so the system would have to be cut out of the concrete to repair it. This was not done and tankers are used to this day. mm43, I imagine weld splatter would be too big to pass a typical 10 micron filter and I think all underwing fuel units have filters. Maybe someone can confirm this?

A few years ago there was a OEM Service Bulletin concerning use of alcohol for cleaning hydraulic actuator parts. Quote:

Tests have shown that acrylic polymer additives, normally present
in hydraulic fluid, will precipitate out of the solution when
alcohol and hydraulic fluid are combined together. The acrylic
polymer will tend to adhere to areas of parts in very close contact
with each other and where very little or no hydraulic fluid flow is
present. The acrylic polymer has a sticky characteristic and will
also tend to attract and hold any particulate contaminant present
in the system fluid. If the acrylic polymer is present between
close fitting surfaces such as the end lands of spool and sleeve
assemblies in flight control cylinders, a sticking condition may be
created which can interfere with free movement of the spool.
Increasingly cold temperatures increase the polymer's viscosity and
as a consequence, pilot input forces required to move the spool are
raised and the attendant response of the flight controls can be
affected.

Maybe some chemical left in the system as part of the repair work mixed with the Jet A-1 to produce something similar?

Doc

FlexibleResponse
18th Aug 2010, 08:33
I missed the link to the CAD Accident Bulletin 3/2010 in "Helicopter Doctor's" post above.

The CAD report is very explicit in that fuel contamination caused the Main Metering Valves of both engines to seize (the No 1 engine jammed at 70% N1 and the No 2 engine jammed at 17% N1).

Helicopter Doctor's link:
http://www.cad.gov.hk/reports/AB-03-2010e.pdf

Carjockey
18th Aug 2010, 11:36
Airport fuelling systems generally have the fuel filtering system and the fuel sampling points installed after the fuel storage tanks and before the fuel hydrant system.

That being the case, fuel entering the hydrant system is considered Ďpureí and safe for use.

If a section of a fuel hydrant system requires repair or re-work, the contractor carrying out the work, and the relevant airport authority, would need to be very sure that the re-worked section was thoroughly cleaned and free of contaminants before the section is re-commissioned.

If realistic construction procedures are not applied and strictly followed before re-commissioning, the potential for contaminated fuel being supplied to aircraft is very real.

Some examples of piping contamination which I have personally witnessed are:
1. Welding rod stubs.
2. Welders gloves/gauntlets and eye glass (UV) filters.
3. Used grinding discs.
4. Cigarette packets, cigarette stubs, lighters and boxes of matches.
5. Sandwich wrappers, polystyrene food containers and food remnants.
6. Plastic water bottles, both empty and partially full.
7. And etc, etc.

Bearing in mind the location of refuelling in this particular case, I donít find it too difficult to believe that some kind of fuel contamination may have occurred.

CJ