A300-600 in Sharm

[Stiflers_Brother]

A flight from Britain carrying 350 passengers on board made an emergency landing at Egypt’s Sharm el-Sheikh airport. According to reports, the flight experienced an engine problem forcing the pilot to make an emergency landing. No one was hurt and the passengers exited the flight in normally.

The flight was an Airbus A380 carrying 350 passengers. The head of the Egyptian airports company told journalists that the flight had to land after an issue with one of the plane’s engines

[BOAC]

Monarch A300?

[NG1]

The Aviation Herald is reporting a Monarch A300... usually a reliable source.

[Eclectic]

Incident: Monarch A306 near Sharm el Sheikh on Aug 8th 2013, engine shut down in flight

By Simon Hradecky, created Thursday, Aug 8th 2013 22:09Z, last updated Thursday, Aug 8th 2013 22:24Z
A Monarch Airlines Airbus A300-600, registration G-MAJS performing flight ZB-248 from London Gatwick,EN (UK) to Sharm el Sheikh (Egypt) with 262 people on board, was descending towards Sharm el Sheikh, estimated to land about 15 minutes later, when the crew declared emergency reporting the left hand engine (CF6) had failed due to fuel no longer reaching the engine and was shut down. The aircraft landed safely in Sharm el Sheikh.

The return flight was cancelled.

Airport Officials reported a Monarch Airbus A380 with 350 passengers reported engine trouble (editorial note: Monarch does not (yet) operate Airbus A380-800s).

The airline reported a warning indication in the cockpit illuminated.

[toffeez]

I think it's still the highest-density A300-600: 361 seats.

[c46r]

sounds like sub-idle

[gcal]

361 is correct:

SeatGuru Seat Map Monarch Airbus A300-600 (AB6) (http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Monarch_Airlines/Monarch_Airlines_Airbus_A300-600.php)

[Lonewolf_50]

While not wishing to seem pedantic, can't someone educate the journos of the difference between a precautionary landing and an emergency landing?

It seems to me that the crew executed a precautionary landing ... which is usually intended to prevent a situation from becoming an emergency. :ok:

[Jet Jockey A4]

Well the A300 is a twin engined aircraft so if they shut down one of the two engines then would it not be considered an emergency?

[Lonewolf_50]

A fair point, A4, but even with only one engine, it flies, and is controllable.

Then again, I expect you would declare an emergency if the donk quit, in order to get appropriate handling from ATC and preferential landing position, so maybe I'm being unfair to the journos on this one.

To my way of thinking, if you have one engine, and it quits, you have an emergency. If you have multiple engines, and one quits, you have a malfunction, but you are still flying. (Yes, it's a major malfunction ...)

[crewmeal]

While not wishing to seem pedantic, can't someone educate the journos of the difference between a precautionary landing and an emergency landing?

Whilst not wishing to be pedantic can't someone educate the journos of the difference between a 2 engined and a 4 engined a/c. Since when have Monarch had 380's?

[tubby linton]

Current seat config is 352.

[Lonewolf_50]

Whilst not wishing to be pedantic can't someone educate the journos of the difference between a 2 engined and a 4 engined a/c. Since when have Monarch had 380's?
Maybe if the journos would spend more time at the Spotters' sub-forum they could learn the difference. :E:cool:

[SLFguy]

Whilst not wishing to be pedantic can't someone educate the journos of the difference between a 2 engined and a 4 engined a/c. Since when have Monarch had 380's?

Whilst not wishing to be pedantic it would be good to of had a link to the journo's error.

All I see here is OP's words not a link to an article.

[Airbubba]

While not wishing to seem pedantic, can't someone educate the journos of the difference between a precautionary landing and an emergency landing?

I'd certainly declare an emergency with an engine shut down in a twin.

And, the recent CYA thinking for U.S. carriers seems to be that you should declare an emergency for lesser problems to avoid being violated for not going into holding, having a Kumbya session with the dispatcher, maintenance, subject matter experts, the manufacturer and maybe the feds.

If you feel it is safer to take immediate action and get the aircraft on the ground on a long dry runway that you can see below you without an amended dispatch release, a check of OPSPECS, runway landing data etc., you'd better declare an emergency to make sure every decision you made is covered by FAR 91.3

Back in the day it used to be 'you are the captain, you ran the checklist correctly and took care of the problem, you got the plane down safely. Fill out a report when you get a moment, we'll forward it to the feds. It was your call and we stand behind your decisions, you were there, we were not, good job!'

Now it's 'you did not properly notify dispatch and scheduling before getting ATC approval to land with the flap problem, you asked for the equipment standing by but did not use the word emergency, the other pilot filed an ASAP report within the time window but yours was an hour late and not accepted, you pulled the CVR circuit breaker but did not annotate it separately in the maintenance log from your flap writeup. Since you didn't formally declare an emergency and your ASAP report wasn't accepted, the POI is looking at it and you'll probably get a letter from the feds on this one...'

[SeenItAll]

Isn't one of the reasons you would declare an emergency in a twin with one out because (if you are not a B757, anyway), you can't really do a good go-around if the previous flight is tardy in vacating the runway.

[barit1]

Why doesn't someone merely open the A300-600 AFM and verify that there's a certified chapter containing performance data with one donk out of service? This issue is a no-brainer. :ugh:

[Airbubba]

Isn't one of the reasons you would declare an emergency in a twin with one out because (if you are not a B757, anyway), you can't really do a good go-around if the previous flight is tardy in vacating the runway.

Why doesn't someone merely open the A300-600 AFM and verify that there's a certified chapter containing performance data with one donk out of service? This issue is a no-brainer.

Actually, the problem the A306 has compared to the B-757 is that the 'Bus goes to full TOGA thrust when you hit the go levers (or whatever they're called). Not as bad as an A310 but you get a large pitch up moment even on a single engine when light.

The '75 spools the engine(s) up on the go around but then throttles back to maintain a manageable 2000 fpm climb if you are on autopilot or following the flight directors. If you pitch over to try to accelerate instead of climb before selecting another pitch mode, the autothrottle will keep adding power since it thinks you need more to get 2000 fpm.

Obviously, we are talking glass cockpit jet airliner twins here, piston twins grandfathered under some ancient rule are a different ballgame and may only take you to scene of the crash in some scenarios with an engine out from what I've read here.

[cwatters]

..the left hand engine (CF6) had failed due to fuel no longer reaching the engine..

Some reasons for that would be more urgent (and less likely) than others. Any more details?

[rog747]

monarch's 4 a300-600's have given sterling service since 1990...
with most of the time with 361 seats in a 3-3-3 config

yes its very tight, they used to send them to the Maldives via BAH....
but a real workhouse,
just like KT Tristars with 400 seats which did go-sick
quite often LOL causes us lots of headaches especially went 2 went tech together on the every Friday night as always in July and august...

they are all (the a300's) due to be retired in next year or so...

there has been very few incidents with in service with monarch over the past 23 years no serious events at all...this one though if the report is correct of fuel starvation is quite serious imho and the inspections will of interest to all concerned.

the a/c was on descent to SSH,
350 pax on the return flight waiting...hotels a plenty though in SSH

[gcal]

We used to get 380 bums on seats on the DC10-10 and flogged them all over the place with very few incidents of any kind.
A bit more spacious than the A300 yes but both seem to be good workhorses.
I've always had a soft spot for Monarch and my old man was one of the first pilots they ever hired.

[Ozlander1]

..the left hand engine (CF6) had failed due to fuel no longer reaching the engine..

Some reasons for that would be more urgent (and less likely) than others. Any more details?



They may have been wondering if it was going to happen to the right engine also.

[barit1]

Ozlander1:They may have been wondering if it was going to happen to the right engine also.

A valid point, but independent of the number of engines. It is conceivable that fuel starvation could occur to all four on a 747 / A340 / A380.

[Landflap]

Technically, by definition, a 50% loss of power plants requires declaration of an emergency. In other words, a "Mayday". Here comes the judgement call though ; in the decent, towards destination airfield, no traffic congestion, airmanship suggests some moderation. oooops, "airmanship", what's that ?

Buddy of mine, donks ago (pardon the pun) suffered an engine failure, in the decent towards a foreign field with busy, broken english ATC. Took up the hold, investigated & restarted the failed engine. Uneventful normal ops app & landing followed. More problems on the ground prompted an internal inquiry where he nearly lost his job. Same guy, in the decent, lost an engine but this time into Orlando. More comfortable with ATC, declared the problem & requested priority (no declaration of a Mayday, though) & was afforded top class asistance.

All of us bought up on twins will remember the drill. Dead leg, dead engine. Look around, try & restart (might have just knocked a button or switch with your knee, eh ?). Bigger stuff had a "inflight restart envelope".

My point is that few of us would engage the drama following a "Mayday" even if that was technically required given careful situation awareness. Looks like Monarch chaps, again, did a fine job. Comes with working for supportive, situationally aware management. Very rare .

[jet commander 64]

[QUOTE] A valid point, but independent of the number of engines. It is conceivable that fuel starvation could occur to all four on a 747 / A340 / A380./QUOTE]

I had low fuel pressure due to contaminated fuel on all the engines in a 4 - engines: landed pretty fast!

[Lonewolf_50]

Thanks to all for the insights on emergency versus precautionary landings. I withdraw my snarky remark in re our journalist friends with those points in mind. :cool:

[Moi/]

A dead donk its an emergency, if its a degraded donk...we'll monitor then upgrade..

[Landflap]

Moi, wrong. Don't wish the thread creep to expand further or we might, quite rightly, get shut down by uncle Rob who already has his Thread Creep Module in "distruct" warm up mode ! But, one donk dead out of four is probably not even a state of urgency (Pan). One dead donk out of three might (urgency only, not an "Emergency which is a mayday). One dead donk out of two is a 50% loss of powerplants and by ANO definition, an Emergency (Mayday). Back on thread (thanks Rob), situational awareness, airmanship etc might modify the need for a Mayday call if you are left on one engine out of two. I still think that the Monarch Guys did a fabbo job. Cool, controlled airmanship at it's most admirable.But, what you expect from these chaps.

[BARKINGMAD]

As one of the incredibly lucky ones, I've only ever seen an engine quit once, in statistically too many years of flying.

It was in a Bae146 and 1 of the wing-mounted APUs decided to run down to sub-idle with all bits rotating, decaying TGT, no unusual noises etc with all other indications normal.

As it was during the descent into London home base, we shut it down, info'd ATC non-emergency and landed without further drama.

Many years later, I am uncomfortable with the current fad in the simulator for dealing with an engine rundown, pausing for thought and then for the sake of dusting off those pages in the QRH, we are encouraged to attempt a restart.

Maybe in mid-pond on ETOPS it might be justified, but modern donks are stunningly reliable, and if one of our modern turbofans quits, it probably means it's definitely defective and quit for a serious reason.

Our ALF-Lycoming, when examined by the engineers, died quietly because the HP fuel manifold to the burners was holed by chafing against an attachment point, and was spraying fuel over the "cold section", the only reason we didn't get an engine fire was due to the cooler compressor casing in the descent.

So to all you TRE/TRIs out there who think it's a jolly good idea to attempt to revive an ailing donk in the simulator, and therefore encourage the practice on the line, please think again before encouraging this as the consequences may be more interesting than one would have hoped?

Just my eurocents worth whilst the topic of "why no fuel to my engine" is being aired. :zzz:

[captplaystation]

Never thought of it that way, & indeed a bit "indoctrinated" to try & start the bugger if it hadn't died with an obvious sickening lurch/bang. . . but, I think you have something there.