Preliminary report on Cathay Pacific aircraft accident released

[HKAforever]

From the CAD website:

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

Press Release: Preliminary report on Cathay Pacific aircraft accident released (http://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/201005/06/P201005060144.htm)
Preliminary report on Cathay Pacific aircraft accident released
*******************************************************
In accordance with the Hong Kong Civil Aviation (Investigation of Accidents) Regulations, an inspector's investigation is in progress to determine the circumstances and causes relating to the accident involving an Airbus A330-342 aircraft operated by Cathay Pacific Airways with registration mark B-HLL at the Hong Kong International Airport on April 13, 2010.

The investigation is being conducted by a team of investigators from the Hong Kong Civil Aviation Department (CAD), the Bureau d'Enqutes et d'Analyses pour la scurit de l'aviation civile of France and the Air Accidents Investigation Branch of the United Kingdom. The National Transportation Safety Committee of Indonesia, the National Transport Safety Board of the United States of America, and experts from Airbus, Rolls-Royce and Cathay Pacific Airways are also assisting in the investigation.

The investigation team today (May 6) released a preliminary report on the accident.

A spokesman of the CAD said that the preliminary report contains facts relating to the accident as determined up to the time of issue and must be regarded as tentative.

"The investigation team will continue to collect and study all relevant information in order to determine the circumstances and causes relating to the accident. More in-depth investigation and analysis work has to be done before any conclusion can be drawn," the spokesman said.

"This preliminary report is published at this stage for general information," he added.

The full preliminary report is attached in the annex. It is also available for download at the CAD webpage (www.cad.gov.hk/english/reports.html (http://www.cad.gov.hk/english/reports.html)).

Ends/Thursday, May 6, 2010

[NgongPing-man]

Nothing really new there. At least it will put an end to baseless speculation. The important thing is WHY and that hasn't been answered yet.

[HKAforever]

Are you sure there is absolutely nothing new there ping pong? Read carefully, there is one or two interesting point in the report.

[404 Titan]

HKAforever

For those of us in the know the only new piece of info is what the ECAM items were. Now that we do know what they were we know the crew and engineering made the right call at the time to continue. The ECAM item in question isn’t a “LAND ASAP” item.

[SMOC]

If this is an accident what do they call AF447 :confused:

[GlueBall]

I would classify this occurrence as an incident, rather than as an accident, as there was no substantial damage and no real injuries. But even as a non airbus pilot, I venture to say that I would have shut down Engine No.1 on short final, rather than touch down with the power stuck at 70% and travelling at 230kts. . . .

[boofta]

Said the monday morning quarterback.

[Kalistan]

Isn't there a speedbrake to slow the plane down say from 1500ft-500ft AGL? Then continue short finals at the approach speeds, even with one engine at 74% N1 and the other at sub-idle, the approach speed would not have crept up to 230kts. It might have been a " hurried " approach but the crew have the tools available to slow down. Like someone mentioned somewhere else, difficult questions gonna be asked unless CX has the investigators in their pocket.

[KABOY]

Anyone heard of flap blowback?

Makes it hard to configure when your fast.

[Virtual Reality]

Excellent post Kalistan but it does not mean an excellent question .....:rolleyes:

Try yourself in a sim and you would be surprised to see the result even with LG down + full speedbrake .........:=

Bear in mind that the aircraft involved was a non 'E' model, therefore, speedbrake is only avail up to Conf 2 or less .......:{

Until then, I think the crew did an excellent job to put the tube on the tarmac in one piece with 0 loss of life .........:D

VR

[Sunny Boyle]

The crew had all the tools to slow down. Flap blow back? How about vectors with a level deceleration phase? I can understand that it is a hurried approach because of trouble from both engines but touching down at 230 knots may mean ignoring tire speed limitations etc. Between the devil and the deep blue sea, you bet but ....................tough questions coming..........

[404 Titan]

Another Sunday wannabe quarterback who thinks he knows everything but in reality knows nothing. Next.:ugh:

[Big Picture]

Yeh the armchair experts are full of it.

Option 1. do orbits, weaves, extra track miles etc to bleed off energy but get it wrong and you go in short. Result - Hull lose with who knows how many casulties

Option2. Get it down, carry extra speed and make sure you get it on. Result - Some blown tyres, aircraft saved and no fatalties.

Sure, when I was a fighter pilot in the air force I could glide a macchi, Hawk or equivalent in from 20nm, given enough altitude. But I trained and instructed for it regulalry. These days we don't train for this anymore chaps (rightly or wrongly), so there is a high chance of f..k ups!

I say good job, but there may be some out there who think they could have done better. Zero fatalities and a saved aircraft is the benchmark!

[LongTimeInCX]

Anyone heard of flap blowback?

I always thought that was when the girls with, how shall we say, large bomb doors, go skydiving au naturel.

[KABOY]

I always thought that was when the girls with, how shall we say, large bomb doors, go skydiving au naturel.


TOUCHE!!!!!

[cxhk]

Well Said JizzMonkey & Big Picture :ok:

Now that we've got a pretty clear picture that BOTH engine STALLed during descent, you got to give it to the company spin doctor who said "at no time where both engine on CX780 where SHUT DOWN". What clever use of words by CCD, because technically it is true.

I gotta say job well done again to the crew on CX780! Must be stressful dealing with both engine stall and then stuck EPA. A lot of armchair pilot on pprune will always think they can do better, but I tend to agree wtih Big Picture that zero fatalities and a saved aircraft is definitely the benchmark in a difficult situation like this!

[GlueBall]

To be sure, if I'm at 230kts on short final [at 300' AGL] in any airplane with an engine stuck at 70% thrust I wouldn't need an armchair pilot to remind me that the engine could be shut down in order to slow down prior to touchdown. It's practical reality. :rolleyes:

[Jetney]

Sunny Boyle, don't waste time with these hero worshippers and self-aggrandizers! They obviously have never faced a technical enquiry board who really slice with a fine scapel into every action the crew took. Typical school boy bravado of a great job done with the fly open!

[Steve the Pirate]

GlueBall

As a matter of interest, do you know what speed you'd reduce to if you shut down the engine at 300'? Also, do you know what effect losing the only operative thrust reverser would have had on the deceleration capability after landing from your reduced speed?

STP

[Scoreboard]

Yah I do know what you will lose in speed at 300 feet with an engine at idle....about 30kts if that. So yeah at 230kts if they had a spare second it might have been a nice thought to throw in shutting down that engine if u wanted to slow down. At 500 feet shutting down the engine from 210 knots the aircraft crosses the threshold at 160 knots.

As for the armchair whackers. Stabilised on glideslope with one engine at idle and one at 70% you get flap 2 and gear with full speedbrake you end up at 210 knots, with flaps flucutating on load relief. they did an amazing job without time to practice or setup for it being 20 knots past that a planned exercise in the sim.

As for the report. Read the ECAM message up on an FCOM/MEL. In the MEL it implies DONT FLY( yeah they are dispatched- but it sure implies how freaking serious it is). On the ground it says SHUT THE ENG DOWN and go home..... in the AIR its basically implies your eng is ****. No it doesnt say LAND ASAP. But the other engine was doing exactly the same thing but milder? who in the right mind would continue no matter what some egghead sitting in armchair is saying to you. He is on the ground your in the air. He got squeezed by being a young captain....and twice he was given ECAMS warning something was seriously wrong with a powerplant.

Final note EPR fluctautions but everything else is normal.

EPR IS POWER. So what if there is nuthing wrong with vibs or oil etc.....Your engine has having problems providing stabilised demanded power. If epr is screwy and everything else is wrong then you either have a powre control problem or a fuel problem. IT AINT HARD to work that out.

[Molokai]

Gotta agree with Jetney. There are lots of tough questions any investigators worth his/her salt will ask. Disregarding tire speed limits at 230kts would fly in the face of dire emergency. However, most people thing that high speed means heavy braking leading to fuse plug meltdowns and tire deflation...........there are more serious consequences; if a tire touches down beyond the tire limit speeds, any immediate disintegration at high speed can cause severe damage to hydraulic lines and the fuel tanks. Never forget limitations........that can bite a big chunk of your bottom!

Another thing, don't fully trust the armchair expert pen pushers in maintenance control with your lives. They are probably more interested in the EPL action than flight watch.

[Steve the Pirate]

Scoreboard

Thanks for the information on deceleration in the air. I assume from the detail of your post you've actually tried this in the simulator with exactly the same parameters as 780.

As for your comment on continuing/returning. Would it be fair to assume that the crew would have been confronted with the same conditions on their return to SUB, the only difference being that the aircraft would have been about 20 or so tonnes heavier? Do you know what the approach speed would have been in that case? You seem to imply that they should have returned to SUB and so, considering the distance taken to stop in HKG, do you think they would have stopped within the LDA at SUB?

As far as the ECAM goes, are you referring to the first or second mentioned in the report? Only the second requires checking of other engine parameters and, from the way I read the report, that only occurred during descent.

STP

[HKAforever]

Correct 404, I'm glad you spotted that too, so you CX guys aren't as daft as I think, haha. :E

I don't want to get into the whole whether the pilot "did the right thing" debate. What I really want to know is WHY is one engine stuck at 70%. Any engineers here? Would like to know possible reasons.

[404 Titan]

Scoreboard
in the AIR its basically implies your eng is ****.
No it doesn't. It depends on the failure.

I wouldn’t divert purely on what the DDG says. Sure it should be referred to but your decision should be based on all the information available, including ECAM, FCOM 3, Engineering, Pilot observations etc. There are plenty of failures that are “No Dispatch” in the DDG but in FCOM 3 are “Crew Awareness” only. Have a look at some of the FADEC failures as an example. It’s all very well to sit here and criticise the captain on 780 but you weren’t there. Lastly, and I realise that the crew concerned couldn’t have known this at the time, but imagine if they did return to SUB and had the same failures on descent. They would’ve had to land about 15T over MLW on a runway that is only 9900 ft long with the obvious result that an overrun of the runway would have occurred at fairly high speed and probable loss of life. I can see the very same people that are criticising them here would be asking questions about why they diverted when it wasn’t necessary.

HKAforever
What I really want to know is WHY is one engine stuck at 70%.
And so would I. There is speculative talk that the Trent 700 powered A330’s will default to 70% and idle if there is a dual engine stall but this is speculation as there is no written evidence to back it up.

Molokai

You seem to have a lot to say about many airlines don’t you? If you knew anything about accident/incident investigation, serious question are asked of everyone involved. Just because these questions are asked doesn’t imply guilt. It implies a thorough investigation.

[Dragon69]

404 Titan,

Nice to see that you are defending the crew, but you are coming across as if mistakes were not made and there is nothing to be learnt from the crew's and IOC's decision making process. Only by the grace of god did the No.1 engine come up to 70%. Judging by what happened to the No.2 engine, the No.1 could have suffered the same fate, resulting in a hull loss. Ultimately they handled the situation superbly , but the chain of events began 4 hours earlier and we are here to stop the chain of events as early as possible.

Let me ask you, if next week you depart CGK and have a double EPR fluctuation at TOC with a ENG SYS CRTL FAULT, are you going to continue on a 4 hour flight to HKG or turn around back to CGK?????

We have all in the past contacted IOC/Engineering for advice/information, since they have real time access to more parameters than we do, but this highlights, yet again, that it is one person sitting on a comfortable chair on the ground with go go attitude making a decision on our behalf. If this aircraft had ditched in the South China Seas, ultimately one of the contributing factors would have been pilot error.

[Molokai]

Did I imply guilt at anytime? I take each thread post and as it comes; I do not go dwelving into other poster's profile to attack them and this is in line with respecting free speech and discussion.

And to the others suggesting that a return to SUB would have led to worser consequences..........hey, there are enroute alternate airports with longer runways and better facilities along the way to HKG.

[potteroomore]

To all the CX boys and ozzie boys out to defend the crew CX780, well and good. But please go not go overboard; you may just be doing them a disservice. This has been borne out in the case of Capt. Burkill of BA038. There are many well meaning posters here who are not trying to blame the crew, but are actually doing the crew a big favour by giving the them the heads up in case very close scrutiny bring up some very tough questions.

I was reading up the posts on BA038 and I came across a very insightful comment :

http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/statusicon/post_old.gif 30th April 2008, 04:56 #82 (http://www.pprune.org/4082430-post82.html) (permalink (http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/324508-ba-hero-wants-quit-5.html#post4082430)) chintanmanis (http://www.pprune.org/members/190199-chintanmanis)

Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UAE
Age: 46
Posts: 23


Don't know much about other professions but in this airline business, NEVER, NEVER set up yourself or in any way get others to imply that you are a hero despite whatever great thing you think you may have accomplished. There a many out there EVER READY to knock you down, especially fellow pilots and airline employees who are failed pilot wannabes.

[Steve the Pirate]

Molokai

And to the others suggesting that a return to SUB would have led to worser consequences..........hey, there are enroute alternate airports with longer runways and better facilities along the way to HKG.Given what we know from the preliminary report, what would make the crew think that they needed a long runway, other than perhaps being in an overweight landing situation? I think your point about a long runway comes from knowing what happened on arrival in HKG, as does my question to Scoreboard regarding a successful stop within the LDA at SUB.

STP

[HKAforever]

404-
Yeah, I have heard of that dual engine stall rumour as well. But I agree that's pure speculation and hard to substantiate at this point. I can't recall off the top of my head, but I remember reading somewhere about Trent engines experiencing something like this, but it was in an obscure aviation journal a long time ago, so I can't remember the details beyond a vague similarity to this incident.

[LongTimeInCX]

dragon69
that it is one person sitting on a comfortable chair on the ground with go go attitude making a decision on our behalf

I think I know what you are getting at, and if you substitute decision for advice, then I'm with you.

Once the aircraft is on its way, in consultation with the other crew, I make the decision about where the aircraft will go, when it goes, and how we do it. Sure I take note of advice from the ground that is either offered or asked for, but they do not decide.
That is why I face the subsequent board of enquiry if it all goes pear shaped.

[404 Titan]

Dragon69

I agree with you in that there are lessons to be learnt from this incident. For the record I haven’t at any stage said mistakes weren’t made. We all make mistakes everyday and I’m sure this crew given the time over again would do some things differently. This isn’t saying that they got it wrong because from my prospective they have made the right decision given the information and advice on the day.

Would I continue on a 4 hour or any flight for that matter with the same EPR fluctuations and ENG SYS CTL FAULT if it happened next week? Probably not but being forearmed armed is being forewarned, something the crew of 780 didn’t have on the 13th April. If I had the same problems but before the 13th April, I honestly can’t see why I would have handled it any differently to this crew.

As for IOC/ENG, they can advise me but they don’t make any decisions for me. In the two times I have been involved in a diversion due mechanical reasons, I have found them quite conservative.

[SMOC]

For all we know the fault up at altitude may have been the best place for it and it was the act of descending that brought on further failures, the fact they continued may have been the best decision.

Until we know the reasons, I wouldn't jump to diverting to a 9000ft runway as all the Monday morning quarterbacks are going to say it was just an EPR fluctuation they should have continued.

No lives lost, no hull loss = :ok:

[FlexibleResponse]

Two engines with major malfunctions...
Landed and stopped the aircraft on a runway...
No lives lost...
A few busted tyres and burnt brakes...
It sounds like a pretty good outcome to me.
I am in love with this aircrew and their prowess!

Who the hell are these other Johnnie-come-lately wankers pontificating on the actions of the aircrew with the benefit of hindsight...and they are still getting it wrong?

Idiots..!

[404 Titan]

Molokai

Let’s have a look at these en-route airports:

WALL = 8202 ft
WBGG = 12402 ft
WSBS = 12001 ft
WBKK = 9800 ft
RPLL = 11188 ft
RPLC = 10499 ft

As 780 took 11500 ft to come to a stop in VHHH we can ignore all but WBGG and WSBS. Looking at the fuel figures from the flight if they had landed at anyone of these two airports they would have landed about 2 – 5 T over MLW and about 14 T heavier than they landed in VHHH. Are you confident they would have pulled up in the LDA with the same failures?

[Molokai]

You are assuming that they were going to get the same failure scenario then, and assuming the crew performed exactly like they did at VHHH.......well they might not have stopped within that distance. Assume, making an ass of u & me just to win an argument.

I am saying another crew will not tackle the problem the way these guys did, period!

[totempole]

Small wonder that an earlier thread on this incident was removed; it degenerated into pissing arguments amongst posters.

Years ago I walked away from a job with SQ because I was shocked that during a TV press interview when a reporter asked a seemingly innocent question ( albeit a bit politically sensitive ) the government official handling the interview countered with an attack on the reporter's background without so much as even coming close to addressing the question.....seemed he already did a dossier on the poor journalist! And of I thought that was scary and I did not want to remain working in that place! Seeing how titan might have probed into Molokai's profile or previous posts remind me precisely of that! Yikes!

potteroo brought up something very wise. Much as we wish the crew well, let's not put them on a pedestal only to be targets later.

[BusyB]

Monday morning Quarterbacks really are a Blot on the Landscape and our profession:ugh:

To speculate what else could or might occur under various scenarios is fair enough and all can learn from that:ok:.

The accusations and conclusions that some make are inexcusable and show an ignorance and lack of experience that I never want to fly with:(

[San Pedro]

Poor crew of CX780; with friends like these looking for the 15 seconds of fame to vent the supposedly " superior " abilities, they don't need hard nose investigators. Potteroomore and totempole, don't waste your time counselling these " friends " of the crew.

[NgongPing-man]

Yes, 404 Titan and HKAforever, I too want to really know how it is stuck at 70%. But I don't pretend to know enough to sprout theories and rumours on this. But maybe someone here knows more and can offer some theory on this?

[Fly747]

Aircraft intact, everyone lives, what more do you want?
RR must be very relieved that they now have the engines back in Derby and can examine them in minute detail to discover what happened. AI didn't need another unexplained hull loss either; if it had ended up in the South China Sea, even if found, vital clues would have been lost. The fuel remaining in the tanks can be carefully analysed too, hint hint nudge nudge, say no more squire.

[CYRILJGROOVE]

I venture to say that I would have shut down Engine No.1 on short final, rather than touch down with the power stuck at 70% and travelling at 230kts. . . .I think you might have come unstuck glueball if you misjudged when to cut the engine and smacked into the sea wall short......or managed to get it on the runway then did not have reverse and over ran into the water at the far end!!. It was a rotten windy wind shear day when the incident occurred and only that crew knew the best action to take in the emergency.

[NoseGear]

And what further problems would there have been by shutting down the 70% engine on short finals...Imagine the ECAMs at that critical stage of the flight? Im away and dont have the FCOMS handy, but why add to your problems at 500ft just to touch down 30kts (if that) slower? Lets be practical about this, there are lessons to be learned, and we have the advantage of sitting at our desks banging out how we woud have done this and that, but none of us were there, and none of us were under the tremendous stress the crew must have been under (dont forget, both engines had just rolled back to idle at Limes). How can you argue with no fatalities and no hull loss? A few burst tires and a bit of a fire on the brakes? And just at what point do you shut down that engine? 500ft, 300ft, 50ft? I for one think the crew did a magnificent job with all the information available. Ive flown with the Captain and he is a sharp cookie and a very nice bloke, and I note there are posters here questioning his command skills relating to his age and experience, I can assure you, the Cathay command course is no walk in the park.
It amazes me the posters here, probably half not even professional pilots, less with Airbus experience, and even less again having flown in the region, questioning the actions of this crew, even to the point to taking cheap shots at the pilots reputation attached to working for Cathay.

Its a bit redundant to now ask if we had similar ECAMS if we would continue, knowing now what we do, but give the crew credit for a job very well done and by all means, learn from this incident, but dont try to hang this crew on a job well done in conditions most of us will never experience. Its quite frankly insulting to professional pilots worldwide.

Nosey

[404 Titan]

NoseGear

Very well said.:ok:

[CXtreme]

:ok: Nose gear

[IGSdude]

Look NoseGear, I've read Glueball, potteroomore and Molokai posts, and nowhere do they say the pilots were mistaken or call them silly names or whatever. They were simply speculating on what might be done in that siutation. That is not condemning the pilots. Ok, with 20/20 hindsight people may of course say different things, but I don't see why you should get so worked up over it.

Why do I get the feeling that you CX pilots are so arrogantly perfect and wonderful that we cannot even speculate as to what actions to take? We are not denouncing the pilots. We are not asking for their names. We respect their professionalism and privacy. We are not even saying we could have done better if we were in their shoes. We know they did a good job under tremendously stressful circumstances. We are just investigating the possiblities. But no, CX pilots are so great that we are not even allowed to investigate the possibilties.

And Ping pong and HKAforever, ever heard of "fuel contamination"?

[SubsonicMortal]

So I got annoyed at reading all the armchair pilots' responses and skipped a few posts, therefore forgive me if it has been said already.

All the comments coming from them suggesting an engine shutdown should have been made on shortfinals is the dumbest thing in that scenario I can think off. It's obvious both engines had ENG CTL SYS FAULT's.

From the report it states that they stopped within a short distance of the upwind threshold. They also were able to select maximum reverse until the aircraft came to a stop and the engine remained at 70% N1. I wonder what would have been the stopping distance had they shut down the engine. Even if they went of the runway by 10 meters that would have put a serious bent in the nose wheel structure and I'm pretty sure a bent nose wheel is a lot more expensive than a few blown tires. Imagine how they would have been criticized by the same armchair pilots if they did shut the engine down and bent the frame! (Read the following with a Homer Simpson armchairpilot voice) "Well maybe the engine was stuck at 70% N1 but they still would have had reverse and been able to stop within the remaining tarmac, DUHHH"

I know economics and airline budgets were the last thing on their minds during approach but surely having control of the aircraft and at least one engine running while racing towards the tarmac over water still, albeit at 230kts, is very reassuring still. Who cares about FCOM 1 explaining tire limit speeds in a situation like that!!?? C'monn!!!

In conclusion, having shut the remaining engine down would have been unwise. They made excellent decisions and can not be criticized in the least. No board of inquiry will question their actions - this is not the air force.

[SubsonicMortal]

IGSdude, I'm not a CX pilot. I fly for a carrier far far away from HK but I recognize the actions taken by the CX crew on that flight as outstanding airmanship. They did an unbelievable job.

[Striker58]

With 2 engines malfunctioning simultaneously on a twin-engine aircraft, how come CAD are still allowing us to fly 180 minute ETOPS on the A330?

Surely flying to a 60-minute rule-distance (at most) until we know what caused the engine control problems, would be appropriate until more is known!

[HKAforever]

Really IGSdude? If you seem to know so much, why don't you care to elaborate on your "fuel contamination" point then?

[NoseGear]

IGSdude...you say "but I don't see why you should get so worked up over it" and the very next sentence you say "Why do I get the feeling that you CX pilots are so arrogantly perfect and wonderful that we cannot even speculate as to what actions to take?"

You are a hypocrite and simply proved my point.:D

You know what? We are good pilots.:ok: Thats nothing to be ashamed of, and the acid test, I would put my family onboard any CX flight, or Dragon flight, without worry.

[IGSdude]

NoseGear and H8HKG, you guys seem to have reading comprehension problems. Where did I say the pilots in question did'nt do a good job? I agree they did do a good job. I'm not questioning that. Look, I'm sure most respectable pilots would would also allow their own families and friends fly their own airline, (unless if it is China Airlines or Garuda, gulp!)

Speculating is not attacking the professionalism and credibility of the pilots. And you have to differentiate between insulting pilots worldwide and insulting CX pilots.

[&&&]

I am staggered at the stupidity, arrogance and ignorance of non professional jet pilots who express any sort of opinon on this sort of thing. It's a bit like having an opinion on your brain surgeons technique.
Airline jet operations involve judgement and knowledge beyond what most other professions require. You really have NO idea what you are talking about and some of you here are looking foolish trying to "debate" this issue.

[IGSdude]

I am staggered by the stupidity, arrogance and ignorance of CX pilots who presume to know what's best. Telling others who have a different opinion that they are "non professional pilots". Oh that's rich. This is just a pathetic excuse to silence dissenting opinions, and we are not scared by you, &&&.

[Bwanah Kumbaya]

Looks like the heroes wised up and stopped their fans from worshipping or has the tough questions already crimping all comments on this thread?

[404 Titan]

Bwanah Kumbaya

Another “New Boy” smart a**e first poster. Nothing has changed from the preliminary report therefore there is nothing else to say at this stage. Once the final report is released in about a year’s time I’m sure people will post something for you assuming of course you could be bothered reading it in the first place.:yuk:

[CRWCRW]

Wow, 3/4's of this thread is a complete waste of space. What a shame.

Management over-heard talking in hello kitty city...

HLL fuel lines, tanks, engine plumbing full of contamination.

Third world airport like Juanda, it really doesn't surprise me.

[titan uranus]

The Captain and FO did an outstanding job, as did the cabin crew who executed a seamless evacuation.

This was a curve ball anomoly. Not specifically trained for, which at times must have defied all natural instincts of the pilots.

By all means once the final report is out, any responsible airline will analyse the data, and attempt to train crews with a view to mitigating against such anomolies if they were to occur again. Without the experiences of crew who were left to make a horse race of it on the day, how would we as an industry come so far in terms of training systems delivering such high levels of safety?
Specifically in this case, the end result speaks volumes for composure under immense pressure. One "wrong" decision, would have ended in disaster. There was no disaster, therefore no "wrong" decision.

I know the Captain well, and have heard the sequence of events straight from the horses mouth. It would indeed put the hairs up on the back of any experienced Airbus pilot's neck. One minute a potential ditching, next elation at securing a level of power ensuring arrival at terra firma, to again faced with a prospect of ditching or overrun...

I'd be really careful with too much open uneducated speculation - some here are hovering on borderline libel.

[4PW's]

Why oh why are these people permitted to post?

Try not to let the non-aviating armchair experts get you down.

Glad to see you made it...:ok:

Outstanding job.

You know that already.

[4PW's]

OUTSTANDING job!

[yi gung chek gei yuk]

Absolutely No Question about the Outcome!!! Well Done

Playing the Devils Advocate here for a moment though...there are a lot of people suggesting that it would have been foolish to shut down the Engine stuck at 70% due to the fact that " he wouldn't have got reverse and therefor would have overrun the rwy"

So who knew that he was going to get reverse??? They had already tried to bring that engine to idle in flight and it didn't respond....so what is the guarantee that reverse is going to work on the ground?

I agree that at 230kts without the reverse, he most probably would have overrun.... but by shutting down the one stuck at 70%( Once the Landing Was Absolutely Certain) at 2000'/1500'/ 1000'/ 500' and allowing the speed to bleed back, obviously the landing run shortens...slower speed and the flaps would've run to 2...more help etc...

As for the ecams? What ecams? You've got Gear Down, Flaps Out ( as much as you can) Hydraulics for the Brakes from the Idling other Eng/ part Spoilers....Emergency Cancel the Ecams and Land. They are nothing more than a distraction at this point. Ignore them!!!

Again, no problems with what the crew did from my side...Thank God it wasn't me, is what I have been telling myself. Great Job!!! But this is a discussion forum.So who knew whether or not the reverse was going to work???? I would've assumed that it wouldn't as per the previous attempts.

Big Man to shut down the one producing the power I know, but at 230 kts, on a 3 * G/S you've got a hell of a lot of margin for speed reduction. Trade 50 kts of speed away by going slightly low and then pulling the nose up, and your landing run is now almost a non event.

I flew that day, and the winds were snotty... a lot easier to chew up runway with even a slightly misjudged flare at 230 kts than 180


My Two Bits

And here it comes......

[zygot44]

OUTSTANDING job! "During the climb, the flight crew noticed some minor Engine Pressure Ratio (EPR) fluctuations on No. 2 engine. No. 1 engine also had EPR fluctuations but within a narrower range."

Both engines had EPR fluctuations and therefore were not operating normally.

"At 0158 hr, when the aircraft was leveling off at Flight Level (FL) 390, the Electronic Centralised Aircraft Monitoring (ECAM) message “ENG 2 CTL SYS FAULT” was annunciated. As parameters on both engines were normal except the slight fluctuation of the EPR indications, both the flight crew and the MC were satisfied that it was safe for the flight to continue."

The EPR fluctuations continued on both engines and it appears the ECAM on engine 2 was discounted. Clearly at this point an outstanding job would have included a diversion to the nearest suitable airport.

"At 0316 hr, ECAM message “ENG 2 CTL SYS FAULT” reappeared. As all engines parameters remained normal except the EPR fluctuations, both the flight crew and the MC were satisfied that it was safe for the flight to continue to VHHH."
The EPR fluctuations continued on both engines and the ECAM on engine 2 was again discounted. Again at this point an outstanding job would have included a diversion to the nearest suitable airport.

"At 0519 hr, during the descent CPA 780 had the ECAM messages “ENG 1 CTL SYS FAULT” and “ENG 2 STALL” annunciated within a short period of time. At 0530 hr, ECAM message “ENG 1 STALL” was annunciated..."

There's nothing outstanding about ignoring problems that manifest themselves on both engines of a twin engine aircraft. There's nothing outstanding about the advice the crew received from Maintenance Control either - looks like commercial considerations were put ahead of flight safety. It is fortunate for the passengers and crew that this incident did not result in fatalities and a hull loss.

[mcdude]

So yi gung you want a discussion. But firstly state your altitude (2000'/1500'/ 1000'/ 500'?) and what speed are you at?

Oh why bother....:confused:

[Bograt]

Zygote (Google it... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zygote)): Yawn. Move along now, nothing new here. Go back to MS FltSim and your virtual airline:

Wannabe Airlines Inc. (http://flyawaysimulation.com/article299.html)

[WeakForce]

Bograt = some sket that is under the age of consent and is a bit ugly. (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Bograt&defid=3475641)

Perhaps that explains why she can't contribute to the real issues??

[Bograt]

Excellent post WF. Did you think that up all by yourself?:D

[Pathos]

Looks like he referenced a dictionary...that book containing words and definitions. You'll learn about it in Year 12. You've made a right fool of yourself Bograt.

[kmagyoyo]

Bograt; I was one too :ok:

Hint- Not everyone comes from GA.

[Mr. Bloggs]

I have to agree with Zygot with this one having dealt with CX operations for over a decade.:{

I bet the Flight Crew, knowing what they know now, would have made a different decision WRT continuing to VHHH.:ok:

I have personally had IOC MC ask to bring the aircraft back outside the MEL (no dispensation). We have all seen the same history defect in the logbook with the rectification as “C/B pulled and connections cleaned, ground check serviceable” for the same defect over the last week.:zzz:

How many times has an aircraft been dispatched under the wrong MEL in order to keep the show on the road until some keen Captain has questioned someone?:D

On a two engine aircraft and both engines are having EPR fluctuations, how does someone in IOC MC/Pilots know it is not something more sinister. It usually does not happen to both engines at the same time, if it does, something more sinister is at work. Take the precautions and live with them. Live is the key word.:D

Use your superior judgment so not to use your superior skill.

Barring that, good job of getting themselves out of a difficult situation BUT it could have been avoided. It only had to take one person to break the chain of events. You decide who it should be.:confused:

[Steve the Pirate]

Mr Bloggs

Barring that, good job of getting themselves out of a difficult situation BUT it could have been avoided.I think might have been avoided would be a better call, as no-one knows what would have happened had they decided to return to SUB - maybe a similar predicament in which they eventually found themselves, only 4 hours earlier and 20 or so tonnes heavier.

Other than that, I agree with your sentiments.

STP

[Dragon69]

I think might have been avoided would be a better call, as no-one knows what would have happened had they decided to return to SUB - maybe a similar predicament in which they eventually found themselves, only 4 hours earlier and 20 or so tonnes heavier.

Or they could have found themselves with two stalled engines when told to descend to FL320 at VINIK.....you can play out a bunch of scenarios to suit an argument. Not blaming the crew, most likely all of us would have continued given the same circumstances, but fact is, it was not the right decision. Lets learn from this and lets not be so complacent next time. We often have a false sense of security that just because we're flying a wide bodied twin-engine aircraft, failures like this cannot happen.

Good post Mr. Bloggs...check your six though, 404 Titan is lurking high and above ready to pounce. :E

[Mr. Bloggs]

Not saying they should have returned to SUB. This happened after TOC and they had time to think. With two eng being suspect, maybe a SIN or Borneo would have been a good choice.:bored:

Be suspect of the advise you get from IOC, they are not looking at you best interest.:hmm:

[simplex]

The place to be with unexplained problems on both engines of a two engine aeroplane is on the ground as soon as possible. Pressing on to destination was not wise. Even if the situation had not deteriorated, the decision was still not wise. The proof? Give MC a call now with the same symptoms and see what they say.

[4PW's]

Exactly.

The advice from Engineering won't be repeated. That appears to be a systemic error. With flight following, we are all encouraged to check before diverting. They did. Question of whether or not they should have taken the advice is for the next player.

Individual operator error? No; systemic, though if repeated I'd say 'all' would frown. So to the end game, the landing.

Bear in mind the real problems occured at top of descent. At TOD! Not a lot of time to figure out the curved ball. Keeping your cool at that stage must not have been simple. But they did, and that is what's outstanding.

Identifying systemic errors usually only happens after the event.

On PPRuNe.

[404 Titan]

fastman737

My opinion hasn’t changed since the preliminary report if you had bothered reading my previous posts. Mind you I can’t expect too much from someone that is obviously illiterate. Next.:ugh:

[coonabarabran]

fastman737 thanks for the input but 2 posts in 10 years??? Smells a bit like "management lurking behaviour".

Mark H "chief 747 lurker" has had his say by the look of it.

[news]

Would shutting down the one working engine prior to landing have been the right decision?

FOR: slow it down

AGAINST: dual hydraulic low level
alternate law
2 spoilers per wing
outer ailerons only(if G+B lo pr)
inner ailerons only(if G+Y lo pr)
nose wheel steering inop
anti skid inop(if G+B lo pr)
flaps slow(if G+B lo pr)
right elevator only(if G+B lo pr)
left elevator only(if G+Y lo pr)
sloppy controls made worse by flap demand

All those FOR..............all those AGAINST

AGAINST has it

Well done to those in the hot seat.:D

Badluck for those in the armchair seat. :(

[flyhardmo]

Hey NEWS you forgot reverse thrust. Heard from the safety department that the combination of landing close to the numbers and reverse thrust helped prevent an overun.

Well to the boys involved.:D

[news]

Brave man Flyhardmo who would have considered reverse thrust to function under those conditions.
To have reverse work was a bonus not a given.

[TimsBits]

Would shutting down the one working engine prior to landing have been the right decision?

Well Done News....you have proven that you can beg / borrow / steal an Airbus FCOM and pick out all the "highlights" of a Double Engine Failure.....clever Lad indeed!

Only one very small problem with your otherwise bulletproof arguement.....

Shutting down the one at 70% would have still left one Engine RUNNING, (albeit at Idle) and supplied you with G Hyd and either Yellow or Blue as well
( depending on the one shut down) and all the electrics etc etc etc.

Therefore, your very exciting, and drama filled list of problems would not have occurred!

But hey....lets never let the FACTS get in the way of a great story:ok::ok:

[geh065]

Shutting down the one at 70% would have still left one Engine RUNNING, (albeit at Idle) and supplied you with G Hyd and either Yellow or Blue as well

I thought it was a "sub-idle" condition? How do we know what it would and would not have supplied when it was not even idling properly?

[LongTimeInCX]

First hand version of HK CAD update of 11 Aug 2010 off their website:

http://www.cad.gov.hk/reports/AB-03-2010e.pdf

spheres huh?

[Freehills]

Mud or cement maybe? Guess that will wait the lab analysis

[Ex Cathedra]

It's a tad worrying that said 'spheres' were able to travel through every filter in the system before seizing the fuel metering valves...

[SloppyJoe]

Are they going to check other aircraft that uplifted fuel to see if there are any of these spheres in parts of the system or in engine/fuel components?

[sinkingship]

Already did, not many people know HLM the previous days SUB flight had EPR fluctuations but obviously not to HLL effect. On the day of LL, LM was grounded for fuel system decontamination and cleaning as precaution, the only difference the fuel samples were not investigated by AIB, only in-house.

[404 Titan]

It would be interesting to know whether any of the fuel farm tanks at SUB had any work done on them on the days and weeks prior to this event. This contaminant sounds very much like they could have used some form of high pressure abrasive cleaning to possibly remove corrosion from the inside of the tank/s and then didn’t clean them out correctly after the job was done.

[cxlinedriver]

The subject flight had used one of the new gates at the terminal - with new piping to the fuel hydrant.

Next question: Why didn't the fuel filtering on the fuel truck stop the **** from being pumped into the aeroplane fuel tanks? The truck filters are much finer than those on the aeroplane and they should have stop this event from occurring.

[geh065]

Not a new gate, but there has been an extension to the apron there and hence new sections of fuel piping were laid under the tarmac. The local engineer says they didn't flush out the dirt from the pipes but just started using it almost immediately. I guess they did not want to waste any fuel even if the first few loads were contaminated!

[The Stunned Mullet]

Surprising that nobody has commented on the fact that no other operators a/c departing SUB at that time reported falling out of the sky.......or is that because duller than dishwater CX were the only airline to use the 'new' hydrant. It is only a rumour of course that all other airlines using SUB were aware of the maintenance and refused to use the fuel. :ok: