Avianca A332, Santa Cruz fuel leak, lost 17 tons!

[NutLoose]

An Avianca Airbus A330-200, registration N975AV performing flight AV-88 from Buenos Aires Ezeiza,BA (Argentina) to Bogota (Colombia) with 252 passengers and 10 crew, was enroute at FL380 near Santa Cruz (Bolivia) when the crew detected a fuel leak and decided to divert to Santa Cruz's Viru Viru Airport for a safe landing.

The airline confirmed the crew detected a fuel leak prompting the diversion, about 17 tons of the 42 tons of fuel on board were lost. An Airbus A320-200 was dispatched to Santa Cruz, whcih took about 150 passengers to Bogota in the night of Sep 14th, the remaining passengers were taken to hotels and were rebooked onto other flights the following day.



Video of it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MSgYB_zTcM


Incident: Avianca A332 near Santa Cruz on Sep 14th 2013, fuel leak (http://avherald.com/h?article=468796d9&opt=0)

[Mungo Man]

Some fuel leak! Its gushing out. Surprised they taxied off the runway with fuel still visible pouring out near the No2 engine and near hot brakes. We've seen what a fuel leak can do in a very short time with the China 737. I don't speak Spanish but would hope that the crew were informed by the tower that fuel was pouring out.

[Right Way Up]

Seems very doubtful that the QRH was actioned or understood.....

......use of thrust reversers? :=

[acutabove007]

I definitely agree with Mungo Man, allowing the aircraft to taxi with the fuel flowing out, which is very clear from the camera that is filming, poses a huge fire risk....although I couldn't make out whether thrust reverses were used or not, and not knowing that much about which engine option Avianca use, but obviously all the core jet e flux is sent out the back when using thrust revers, which again is perfect for causing catastrophic fires (Concorde), so I'm curious why they didn't stop as quickly as poss and why fire trucks weren't quicker on the scene covering the breaks with foam and what ever else they use.

[NutLoose]

From the comments on the link

from the audio is clearly noticeable that the crew didn't know, or could not identify until that moment (leaving the runway), the point were they had been loosing the fuel from.

When the GND controller says:
- you have a considerable leak from the right hand engine, please proceed to shut that engine down and confirm us if you can taxi with only one engine or we can tow you to the platform.- (more or less)

the crew asks for confirmation:
- from the right hand engine?

the controllers confirms that, the crew states that they have shut down the right hand engine and that for the moment they will maintain that position. Over there the recording ends.

Is going to be interesting to see what caused that big fuel leak. Fortunately the exhaust gases from that engine didn't ignite the fuel. Maybe the engineers planned for a similar scenario on the designing phase.

[DaveReidUK]

not knowing that much about which engine option Avianca useTrent 772.

[Hotel Tango]

Yep, having looked at the footage several times, the reversers were used :eek:

[nitpicker330]

Three words for this crew-------Fuel leak checklist :eek:

So, they knew they had a big leak because they immediately diverted to the nearest suitable airfield, good so far :ok: However they obviously didn't read the QRH or FCOM at all????????

Very bloody lucky they didn't burn...

[LGW Vulture]

Nice to see so many emergency vehicles in attendance! :eek: :uhoh:

[DaveReidUK]

obviously all the core jet e flux is sent out the back when using thrust revers, which again is perfect for causing catastrophic fires (Concorde)The core jet efflux comes out of the back of a high-bypass turbofan engine whether or not the thrust reversers are being used. :O

Hot-stream reversers, which featured on early RB211s, JT9Ds, etc, were one of those things that everybody thought was a good idea at the time, but then realised weren't actually doing very much to slow the aircraft down and were therefore removed.

Incidentally I'd be fascinated to know what you think thrust reversers had to do with the Concorde accident.

[PJ2]

nitpicker330;
Three words for this crew-------Fuel leak checklist http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/eek.gif

So, they knew they had a big leak because they immediately diverted to the nearest suitable airfield, good so far http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif However they obviously didn't read the QRH or FCOM at all????????Not necessarily. Nothing is "obvious" at this stage of the event except that there is a fuel leak from the right engine. While the QRH first addresses a leak from the engine/pylon and requires an engine shutdown, (Engine Master OFF), we don't know if they did the QRH or not and we don't know why the leak occured* and won't until the engine is examined.

*Fuel Leak Event - A333 (http://www.bst-tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/aviation/2003/a03p0332/a03p0332.asp)

[ChristiaanJ]

Dave,
"Incidentally I'd be fascinated to know what you think thrust reversers had to do with the Concorde accident".
I shouldn't bother ...... he's obviously been reading urban legends.
Not to mention the time and effort it took to find the ignition source of the Concorde fuel leak.... the electrical arc in the wheel well was after all only the "most probablde cause".

[LeadSled]

Folks,
With a fuel leak like this, it is reminiscent of the Canadian aircraft that finally did a dead stick landing at a small island (don't remember which one) in the middle of the Atlantic.

[DaveReidUK]

With a fuel leak like this, it is reminiscent of the Canadian aircraft that finally did a dead stick landing at a small island (don't remember which one) in the middle of the Atlantic.

Lajes, Azores.

That, coincidentally (or not), was another Trent-powered A330-200.

[E_S_P]

Just wondering what the general opinion would be with a fuel leak of this magnitude - in these particular circumstances, i.e. what looked like 'limited' fire truck(s) in attendance?

Would you

a) continue to taxi hoping the fuel doesn't ignite, and to get closer to other(?) emergency services which are not shown on the video?

Or

b) stop as soon as, and to allow the fuel to pool around and under the a/c with hot brakes - potentially trapping all inside if it went up?

Not seeing the conclusion of how it is actually dealt with does make it a little more difficult.

[10 DME ARC]

As a Tower controller in UK about 20 years ago I had a B752 depart with a massive fuel leak, after about a dozen attempts to get the crew to realise they had a problem, "No indication of a problem in the cockpit" my self and the radar controller kept getting told!!
After they realised they had a problem they returned and had to use reverse on landing due to high weight, the whole of the aircraft was engulfed in fuel vapour!! I remember a helicopter pilot sitting rotors just accidentally broadcast :mad:
It was a common 'ish' fault with fuel line on RB211-535 at the time!

[lomapaseo]

historically fuel fed fires on the ground with a running engine ignite after the aircraft is stopped.

The only other ones I can think of was where the engine itself had opened up its innards to allow a fuel leak inside.

[ExRR]

@DaveReidUK

Hot-stream reversers, which featured on early RB211s, JT9Ds, etc, were one of those things that everybody thought was a good idea at the time, but then realised weren't actually doing very much to slow the aircraft down and were therefore removed.

To the best of my recollection every RB211 built had the thrust reverser in the hi-bypass duct and never used the hot jet thrust. It would make no sense since virtually all the thrust came from the large fan.

It certainly was there when I was working on the reverse thrust interlock system and that was prior to first test flight.

[wiggy]

Maybe and depends on the type

Then again some of us have got a tie as a result of a straight forward tank failure.

[Bearcat]

Jeez wept......the QRH was definitely not consulted. Th rev? No fire engines at end of runway to meet and greet.

[DaveReidUK]

To the best of my recollection every RB211 built had the thrust reverser in the hi-bypass duct and never used the hot jet thrust. It would make no sense since virtually all the thrust came from the large fan.

It certainly was there when I was working on the reverse thrust interlock system and that was prior to first test flight.I don't recall saying, or implying, that any RB211s had been built without the cold-stream reverser, only that early engines had both. References to the the hot-stream reverser survived in the engine Type Certificate up to 1982.

[awblain]

I'll remember not to expect to be rescued from a burning aircraft at Santa Cruz. Or to have a decent video taken of the accident for the memorial service.

[Super VC-10]

Question:

With a significant fuel spill on the runways and taxiways, as in this incident, would braking be affected for following aircraft, or would the fuel evaporate fairly quickly and not have a significant detrimental effect?

[VNAV PATH]

Fuel leak Check list is for leaks between spar valve ( low pressure cutoff valve) and engine . There is no check list ( boeing planes too.. ) dealing with fueĺ leaks before the spar valve wich is shut off by ENG MASTER shut off , such as fuel tanks .

Bolded text by myself .




CASE 1: IF ONE INNER TANK DEPLETES FASTER THAN THE OTHER BY AT LEAST 500 kg IN LESS THAN 30 min:

An engine leak may still be suspected. Therefore:

THR LEVER (engine of affected inner tank) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IDLE

ENG MASTER (engine of affected inner tank) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .OFF

FUEL LEAK. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .MONITOR

❖ If leak stops:

If the fuel quantity of the affected inner tank stops decreasing, the engine leak is confirmed and stopped.

L + R CTR PUMPS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ON

T TANK FEED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AUTO

WING X FEED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . USE AS RQRD The crossfeed valve can now be opened to re-balance fuel quantity, or to enable use of fuel from both wings. Do not restart the engine.

❖ If leak continues (after engine shutdown):

If the fuel quantity of the affected inner tank continues to decrease, a leak from the wing may be suspected.

ENGINE RESTART . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CONSIDER

FUEL LOSS REDUCTION proc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .CONSIDER

CAUTION ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Do not apply the FUEL IMBALANCE procedure. Approach and landing

[Machinbird]

With that cloud they were trailing on final, I have difficulty believing they tried very hard to determine which engine was the problem. A simple peek from a window behind the wing should have done the job.:*

[Capn Bloggs]

Would you

a) continue to taxi hoping the fuel doesn't ignite, and to get closer to other(?) emergency services which are not shown on the video?

Or

b) stop as soon as, and to allow the fuel to pool around and under the a/c with hot brakes - potentially trapping all inside if it went up?
Very good question. Not my initial reaction, but now you mention it I think a) would be the best option. You wouldn't have to taxi fast; the trucks could catch up and start spraying when you stopped.

The hypothetical evacuation could have been good; cabin crew look out door windows, see nothing untoward and evacuate straight into pooled fuel. :cool:

[DozyWannabe]

That, coincidentally (or not), was another Trent-powered A330-200.

Almost certainly coincidental. The initiating factor there was an incorrectly fitted spacer bracket by Air Transat's maintenance - the replacement engine did not seem to have the bracket as part of the kit and, likely under some pressure to get the aircraft out and earning again, they assumed they could use the old one without checking the part number.

As it turned out the design had been revised and the brackets were not interchangeable. This meant that there was insufficient clearance between the hydraulic lines and the fuel lines and the former abraded the latter until it gave way.

[Chu Chu]

Maybe Acutabove's point was that the thrust reversers divert the bypass air and prevent it from diluting and cooling the core jet efflux? I can't claim any special knowledge, but it doesn't seem entirely implausible that might increase the chance of igniting fuel mist behind the engine.

[swh]

EZE-BOG diverting to VVI probably would have been around 2.5 hours after takeoff in EZE before they were on the ground again in VVI.

6t for the takeoff and climb (30 min), 1t for the descent and approach (25 min), and around 9.5t for the 1.5 hrs of the initial cruise.

It would mean the fuel leak was not that significant if 17t or the 42t was not in the tanks on landing, probably in the order of 1t.

[tonytales]

I think the big issue on using reverse after landing with a massive fuel leak from the engine cowl would be that the fuel will be picked up and carried forward and then ingested into the engine inlet. This would cause the engine to "run away" and not respond to the throttle. Would have thought that shutting it down in flight would be preferable. Spar valve would cut off fuel flow and stop leak. But then, I'm only a maintenance person.
Re hot stream reversers. Both the B-747-100 with JT9D and the L-1011 with RB0211-22B initially had hot stream reversers also called hot stream spoilers. Both had them deactivated after service experience. Trying to keep push-pull cables running along a hot tailpipe on the B747 or high-speed flex cables and rotary jackscrews also adjacent to hot parts on the L-1011 proved to be bad ideas. They were a continual problem and maintenance breathed a sigh of relief when they were removed.

[NigelOnDraft]

Easy to jump on the crew, but:

If they were using from the C Tank, would it not be quite difficult to "identify" the leak location (as fast as the R Inner Tank depletes it is topped up from the Centre)?
Ditto use of Reverse - and not sure a drill ever says avoid reverse on a running engine?
One reason to vacate, or at least not immediately shutdown, would be to position the aircraft with the affected engine / area downwind of the fuselage. As above, difficult to do until you have evidence of where the problem is.
Please NB this crew identified the problem, diverted, landed safely with seemingly nil damage, drama or injuries - unlike other well known occurrences. I am sure with 20:20 hindsight some things could have been optimised.

Having recently done Fuel Leak Sim training, in today's dumbed down world of following the drills, little emphasis on the effects of the fuel itself - all about management and especially avoiding use of crossfeed. I also think some of the above posters think Jet aircraft use Avags, rather than fairly inert Avtur ;)

[DaveReidUK]

Almost certainly coincidental. The initiating factor there was an incorrectly fitted spacer bracket by Air Transat's maintenance - the replacement engine did not seem to have the bracket as part of the kit and, likely under some pressure to get the aircraft out and earning again, they assumed they could use the old one without checking the part number.

As it turned out the design had been revised and the brackets were not interchangeable. This meant that there was insufficient clearance between the hydraulic lines and the fuel lines and the former abraded the latter until it gave way.You may well be right that the two incidents have nothing in common.

Having said that, the GPIAA Air Transat investigation found 12 probable causes and contributing factors, of which 7 were maintenance-related.

Two of the 12 Safety Recommendations made to NCAAs and EASA also related to configuration issues:

"Review applicable airworthiness regulations and standards as well as aircraft, engines and component maintenance manuals, to ensure that adequate defences exist in the pre-installation, maintenance planning process to detect major configuration differences and to establish the required support resources for technicians responsible for the work."

and

"Review the adequacy of the current standards for identifying the configuration and modification status of major components to ensure that differences between major components of similar part numbers can be easily identified."

It would be good to think that confusion over (non)-interchangeability, and time pressures on maintenance, have both been relegated to the past - but I doubt it, even if they turn out not to be implicated in this instance.

[Double Back]

Mind You, fuel problems are not always easy to determine. Is it actual loss, or indication?

I remember one case in our CY when fuel was transferring in an absolute illogical way. It turned out piping form another tank that ran through the affected tank, leaked INTO that tank.

No checklist procedure coped with that problem, only aggravated the situation.
Thanks to one good thinking crew (and ACARS plus O/G technical staff....) they could find a solution and continue).

In defense: some remarks in this and other threads point to non-anglo or non "western" companies/crews as generally incompetent.
Having audited some of these companies (and also with former "eastern" countries) I have met real hot shot crews, extremely competent, well trained and above all motivated to perform excellent. And that in environments we only get bad dreams of.

"Western arrogance" I call it, and it is not fair to our colleagues whose cradles happened to be in another part of the world. And learned to speak English with an accent.

[CONF iture]

It would mean the fuel leak was not that significant if 17t or the 42t was not in the tanks on landing, probably in the order of 1t.
Looking at the video the leak was important, so is it 17t really disappeared and only around 8t were left in the tanks upon arrival ... ?

[flyboyike]

Question:

With a significant fuel spill on the runways and taxiways, as in this incident, would braking be affected for following aircraft, or would the fuel evaporate fairly quickly and not have a significant detrimental effect?


This is the kind of question I like, just the right number of big words, but not too big, the question is not real long, shows genuine concern for following aircraft. Good stuff.

[tonytales]

Re DaveReidUK post:
The misfitting of fuel line spacers at an Air France maintenance facility seems to be a problem, re the axle spacer on the Concorde. If commercial pressures actually do over-ride safety, then something is drastically wrong. How did it pass inspection? I spent over fifty years in maintenance and quality control both working and managing. Mistakes like this are your worst nightmare. You set procedures like detailed sign-offs for each step and back it with quality control procedures so they do not occur.
Once in my career, a plane I worked on, actually an Avianca Super Connie, crashed, You cannot understand how low I and the other techs who had worked on it felt until we learned that it was not maintenance related accident. It still left a lesson engraved on me that I carried for the rest of my career.
Still do not understand why an engine trailing a huge fuel plume would be kept operating and reverse used after touchdown?

[Tray Surfer]

WOW! That is quite some fuel leak!

[Machinbird]

I think the big issue on using reverse after landing with a massive fuel leak from the engine cowl would be that the fuel will be picked up and carried forward and then ingested into the engine inlet. This would cause the engine to "run away" and not respond to the throttle.
Actually, I'd expect a he!l of a compressor stall with fire belching out the intake.
A Diesel might run away with excess fuel, but most jet engines protest loudly.:}

Spectacular compressor stalls and uncontrolled fuel spillage are nothing to be trifled with. Seen it up close and it wasn't pretty.

[broadreach]

A Spanish-speaking layman's observation:

a) pretty relaxed atmosphere in the tower. There was sufficient interest to film the landing but not to understand the implications and potential consequences of the fuel leak evidently trailing behind the starboard wing, and act upon them. At an early stage in the clip someone answers the phone and says "completamente desconocido" which I take as referring to the novelty of an Avianca aircraft landing.

b) Not 100% sure about this but the impression from the tower/aircraft talk is that the flight deck only learned where the leak was when they were on the taxiway opposite the tower. Seems surprising and I wonder if indeed they even tried to have a look from one of the windows at the rear. And if they did, whether the fuel trail would have been visible up close, from immediately opposite the trail. It is in the clip but of course that's from a totally different angle.

c) Hot brakes. Viru Viru is just over 11,000 ft and they turned off at the first available exit, having used around 3/4 of the available runway. With convenient 20:20 hindsight I wonder whether using the remaining length of the runway might not have assisted in cooling the brakes to a less threatening temperature.

[bubbers44]

Using the full length to save brakes is always the way I landed at TGU. Make sure you can make the exit you want then use the rest of the runway to reduce brake heating.

[tonytales]

I agree the idea of a compressor stall on an engine in reverse with a heavy fuel leak is frightening. I have been 100 feet in front of an RB211-22C that stalled and it blew me off my feet flat on my back. And yes, there are flames out the front.
But didn't the Concorde report say one of the engines ran up uncontrollably because of ingesting fuel down the inlet? Of course, they were not big fans but straight turbojets.
Anyway, I think they were fortunate not to have any further consequences.

[JammedStab]

One reason to stay on the runway in such a situation is for fire vehicle access. Notice how narrow the taxiway is. If the ground is soft, then the fire trucks may become bogged down and not be able to reach the desired firefighting location in relation to the aircraft.

[Brake Fan]

Hmmm..
3tanks, 2 engines .....
Oh well that's what happens when you let the pilots do the Flight Engineers job.

[Chu Chu]

If an engine did run away because the reverser was pushing leaked fuel into it, would deselecting the reverser stop the cycle? I guess even a short lived runaway wouldn't be a good thing, but the possible compressor stall sounds even scarier.

[Gusz]

@Brake Fan... Care to expand your statement?

[Willit Run]

Maybe I missed it, but, what was the cause of the leak ?

[BOAC]

Unsubstantiated post on Av Herald:
According to maintenance, they had a line rupture between the fuel pumps and the FCU.

[lomapaseo]

Unsubstantiated post on Av Herald:
According to maintenance, they had a line rupture between the fuel pumps and the FCU.

Wouldn't that stop the engine as well?

[BOAC]

Dunno! I guess it would depend on the pumps output/engine demand and what power they were getting?

[Willit Run]

BOAC,

Great answer.

Three pages and it came down to that!

Do you drink beer?

[Capn Bloggs]

Unsubstantiated post on Av Herald:
According to maintenance, they had a line rupture between the fuel pumps and the FCU.
Wouldn't that stop the engine as well?
Unless someone is being liberal with their English, I cannot see how a "rupture" between the fuel pumps and the FCU would mean anything other than the engine stopping immediately. Look at the rate of that leak. It's absolutely :mad: out, even at Idle.

[tonytales]

The engine fuel pump and even the aircraft boost pumps are sized to be able to provide considerably more fuel than the engine will require. This gives them a margin so if they degrade or some restriction occurs the engine will not be starved.
Since the engine continued to operate and even pull some power in reverse it would appear this was not a total "rupture" of the fuel line but a leak,albeit ba ig one. However it is obvious that there was enough fuel being provided by the pump to sustain engine operation and keep the leak going.
Being retired I am cut off from sources of IPC and other drawings. Would love to see on illustrating what went wrong.

[Machinbird]

If you look at the video, it seems that the size of the fuel cloud reduces considerably almost coincident with the wheel spin up smoke. Might just be the fuel pump slowing down as the engine is throttled back.

The fuel seems to be coming out over a broad area of the cowling, not just from an overboard line.

To land an aircraft with an active large scale fuel leak considerably raises the hazard. A leak of the size of this one must have been visible from the cabin once the ground was visible as a background.

Did they request a visual inspection by the crew in back? Did PNF go back for a look? Did they ask the tower what they were seeing? What did they do to isolate and identify the source of the leak?

The thought of an aircraft full of people standing on top of a rapidly spreading puddle of fuel scares the bejesus out of me and it should scare you too.

I think I'd do everything possible to get a big leak under control before landing.

[ShotOne]

"to land with a leak raises the hazard...". Ah well, best to just keep flying around until it's all gone then!

[Machinbird]

"to land with a leak raises the hazard...". Ah well, best to just keep flying around until it's all gone then! Ha! A perfect example of droll Brit humor.:ok:

Back when I was flying tactical stuff, almost all of it had a single feed tank to the engine/engines and if you had a leak from downstream of the feedtank, you had better get it on the ground before the go juice ran out unless you could safely isolate the leak.

Transport aircraft fuel systems are a bit more redundant with separate feed tanks for each engine. (No doubt exceptions exist). As long as the crossfeed remains closed and you have enough fuel to make it to a suitable airport, do you really need to land ASAP?

[poorjohn]

[if] you have enough fuel to make it to a suitable airport, do you really need to land ASAP?Depends on your willingness to gamble on no possibility of in-flight ignition.

[Machinbird]

Depends on your willingness to gamble on no possibility of in-flight ignition.
poorjohn
A valid concern.
Here is my take on the dilemma.

You are hired to make decisions based on training and experience.

To make good decisions, you need information, not fear.
Questions like where is the leak?
Is fuel accumulating in the aircraft? If so, where?
Can I isolate the leak?
What configuration changes might be particularly hazardous?
Will I encounter balance problems if this continues leaking? And of course, one of the important ones, can I make the airport.

QF32 stands as an example of how these situations (and worse) can be handled.

But I would not breathe a sign of relief as you slow to taxi speed and think, "now it is the crash crew's problem." There is still time to seize disaster from the jaws of victory.

The emergency isn't over until the wheels are chocked and everyone is off the aircraft.

[ironbutt57]

You can work your way through the normative decision-making process..after having completed the intuitive process...which in my Airbus QRH states "LAND ASAP"....

[PJ2]

In re BOAC's post concerning the AVHerald remark re, "fuel line rupture", the following may be of some interest.

Report: Air Transat A330 fuel exhaustion (http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&ved=0CGUQFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fss.aero%2Faccident-reports%2Fdvdfiles%2FPT%2F2001-08-24-PT.pdf&ei=xd0_UqiICMm4yQGQy4DgBQ&usg=AFQjCNG3YAm6i58I31IND7AYJQ54ABe3Xg&sig2=PyKtXYFRWnWn_ArK5eVonA&bvm=bv.52434380,d.aWc)

I posted this previously in the thread and I'll post it once more in case some haven't had a chance to read it yet.

Report: Air Canada A333 fuel leak at the engine (http://www.bst-tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/aviation/2003/a03p0332/a03p0332.asp)

From the TSB report:

"Rolls-Royce indicates that pressure in the LP fuel line increases from 100 pounds per square inch (psi) at idle to approximately 190 psi at take-off power while the fuel flow rate increases from 685 kg per hour to 9000 kg per hour. Data from the FDR indicate that a fuel discrepancy began when engine power was increased for take-off. At take-off power, the fuel loss was calculated to be approximately 10 000 kg per hour, yet the engine continued to operate normally."

Whether the Avianca A332 leak would have stopped the engine is debatable. The "contrail" left by the fuel in the AC case looks to be about the same as the Avianca one and in both cases the engine kept running normally.

[ironbutt57]

well....very simply...if the fuel on one side is leaking for sure if one takes no action...eventually the engine on the leaking side will run out of fuel before the one that is not...not rocket science...the Airbus fuel leak procedure (enhanced after the Transat incident)..is very detailed...best not try and "out think it"