Sri Lanka A340 Engine Failure ZRH
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Abu Dhabi, UAE (AUH)
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sri Lanka A340 Engine Failure ZRH
A Sri Lankan A340 on the take-off run at ZRH Rwy 16 suffered an engine failure at V1!!! I believe either #3 or#4 engine
I was holding short on taxiway B, taxying towards Rwy 10 for departure back to LCA, the incident happened just infront of us.
We have all gone through the routine in the Sim every six months....Engine failure or Fire at V1, continue and take the probelm into the air..what are the real statistic of this event happening?
I was very supprised at the POOR Climb performance of a heavly laden A340, especially with the 'GEAR DOWN' at 300ft agl.
Air Traffic kept prompting the Crew they were flying BELOW Radar Minima during the inital climb and clean-up.
They then had vectors towards ZUE East dumped fuel for 35 mins and I presume returned S/E without further incident.
Interesting day for all...
Low Energy...Low Profile....If in Doubt...Green Dot Speed....
I was holding short on taxiway B, taxying towards Rwy 10 for departure back to LCA, the incident happened just infront of us.
We have all gone through the routine in the Sim every six months....Engine failure or Fire at V1, continue and take the probelm into the air..what are the real statistic of this event happening?
I was very supprised at the POOR Climb performance of a heavly laden A340, especially with the 'GEAR DOWN' at 300ft agl.
Air Traffic kept prompting the Crew they were flying BELOW Radar Minima during the inital climb and clean-up.
They then had vectors towards ZUE East dumped fuel for 35 mins and I presume returned S/E without further incident.
Interesting day for all...
Low Energy...Low Profile....If in Doubt...Green Dot Speed....
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Abu Dhabi, UAE (AUH)
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A340 V1
Should have really said ROUND ABOUT V1....
Rotation occured at around 3 seconds after the smoke we observed.
Usual balanced field take-off out of ZRH Rwy 16 usually occurs round about were were at the runway holding point.
We were at an intersection 70 deg to the incident rwy at approx. 900 mtrs before the end.
Rotation occured at around 3 seconds after the smoke we observed.
Usual balanced field take-off out of ZRH Rwy 16 usually occurs round about were were at the runway holding point.
We were at an intersection 70 deg to the incident rwy at approx. 900 mtrs before the end.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Zurich
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A320 SFO:
FYI: It was engine #4.
And tower thanks you for your information about the smoke you saw, too, and your information about it on the frequency.
Talk to you again,
OE-LAU.
FYI: It was engine #4.
And tower thanks you for your information about the smoke you saw, too, and your information about it on the frequency.
Talk to you again,
OE-LAU.
The Original Party Animal
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Around the corner
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was very supprised at the POOR Climb performance of a heavly laden A340
We call them "transport gliders"...
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Hilton, Sheraton or Marriott
Posts: 1,817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well done to the crew. It's never easy coping with a donkey going at "round about V1" and 16 is difficult with the emergency turn and doubtlessly ATC prattling on about minimum altitudes when you're very aware that you are rather low & slow & would dearly like to alter that. Glad the weather was good but they seem to have done a text-book recovery.
4HP
4HP
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dubai - sand land.
Age: 55
Posts: 2,832
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A320 SFO - FYI, engine-out on a heavy 340-300 doesn't give sparkling performance
That's why there are emergency turns
Also, green dot speed ONLy comes into the equation once the aircraft is CLEAN!!! If in doubt stick to the recognised engine fail on take-off procedure
Well done to the UL crew
That's why there are emergency turns Also, green dot speed ONLy comes into the equation once the aircraft is CLEAN!!! If in doubt stick to the recognised engine fail on take-off procedure
Well done to the UL crew
You can see that the no. 4 engine is not producing any >thrust.
And hefty amounts of left rudder too. Well done to all concerned.
And hefty amounts of left rudder too. Well done to all concerned.
I guess that I was looking for fire and sparks and failed to see the lack of normal combustion products vapor trail and I agree that was a very visible rudder deflection.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re the earlier comments about poor climb performance:
I don't understand these comments, after looking at the hyperlinked pictures. If those pictures were of the incident (and clearly #4 is the only engine not producing some smoke), then the climb angle shown appears quite acceptable to me. At a guess, climb angle exceeded 5 degrees.
Given the sky in the background and lack of cumulogranite in the pictures, I would suspect that ATC warnings of low altitude were quadrant based, not departure alley based.
FARs/JARs do not require huge climb angles in the event of engine failure. The performance shown in the pics would have been good for all engines performance for some previous generations (including early 747s at max gross on hot days).
From much earlier days, my recollection of climb performance on three Wright R3350s was that one had to average VSI readings to be sure one was in fact climbing.
Looks like a well handled incident with relatively low resultant risk.
I don't understand these comments, after looking at the hyperlinked pictures. If those pictures were of the incident (and clearly #4 is the only engine not producing some smoke), then the climb angle shown appears quite acceptable to me. At a guess, climb angle exceeded 5 degrees.
Given the sky in the background and lack of cumulogranite in the pictures, I would suspect that ATC warnings of low altitude were quadrant based, not departure alley based.
FARs/JARs do not require huge climb angles in the event of engine failure. The performance shown in the pics would have been good for all engines performance for some previous generations (including early 747s at max gross on hot days).
From much earlier days, my recollection of climb performance on three Wright R3350s was that one had to average VSI readings to be sure one was in fact climbing.
Looks like a well handled incident with relatively low resultant risk.