Qatar Airways A330 Dual Engine Flameout
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Europe
Posts: 341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lomapaseo, your concerns are indeed valid but the regulators/manufacturers will never be able to foresee every scenario at the planning phase. It will work 99.9999% of the time. On a positive note, the safety net in place in this case has worked to perfection.
The data collected will no doubt further improve the system.
Nonetheless, I think the guys at GE should at least revisit the wording on their website
From... http://www.geae.com/engines/commerci.../cf6-80e1.html
The data collected will no doubt further improve the system.
Nonetheless, I think the guys at GE should at least revisit the wording on their website
GE was able to bring together the newest technology to provide the market with an engine with the lowest weight, lowest fuel burn, proven stall free operation, and by far most reliable to enable operators to maximize the potential of the A330
Last edited by 320DRIVER; 12th Jun 2006 at 06:27.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
320Driver - I find your praise of Airbus and GE quite interesting in what might otherwise be cause for concern in the community. Since this problem is apparently (per the recent operator letter and 747 comments above) shared with other CF6-80 engines, perhaps Airbus could have released this recommendation to the A330 fleet earlier, instead of waiting for an event to happen? That event turned out to be a two-engine flameout on a two-engine airplane. If you eventually fly widebodies, would you be comfortable in assuming that these engines will always restart quickly after a flameout? Or would you prefer to prevent the flameouts from happending in the first place?
Also, do you have additional information to share about the event? The event was reported as two flameouts, not stalls. Even after this event, the engines may in fact operate free of stalls.
Also, do you have additional information to share about the event? The event was reported as two flameouts, not stalls. Even after this event, the engines may in fact operate free of stalls.
Last edited by Alty; 20th Jun 2006 at 17:04.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Europe
Posts: 341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alty, the only information I have is that gained through PPRUNE. I get the point re: the difference between stall/flame-out, fiscal as it may be in the light-hearted context I wanted to convey in that part of the post.
I still think that both the airframe and engine manufacturer passed the test here. As I wrote in the previous post, no regulator nor designer can ever hope to forecast all the possible events that their product might encounter, be it through freak environmental events or crew mis-handling.
Yet, the crew/aircraft/engine combination recovered well and we have a new opportunity to learn without the dire task of counting bodies.
Could Airbus have advised about this type of event beforehand knowing the history of the 747-based CF-6? Maybe... but again it is not an identical engine in all respects, so it may not have been an obvious choice as you seem to imply. After all, we have the benefit of hindsight, which as the saying goes, is always 20/20 vision!
I still think that both the airframe and engine manufacturer passed the test here. As I wrote in the previous post, no regulator nor designer can ever hope to forecast all the possible events that their product might encounter, be it through freak environmental events or crew mis-handling.
Yet, the crew/aircraft/engine combination recovered well and we have a new opportunity to learn without the dire task of counting bodies.
Could Airbus have advised about this type of event beforehand knowing the history of the 747-based CF-6? Maybe... but again it is not an identical engine in all respects, so it may not have been an obvious choice as you seem to imply. After all, we have the benefit of hindsight, which as the saying goes, is always 20/20 vision!
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Will be interesting to see how this event will effect ops with an air con pack inop or a HP air valve inop.
.
Still very strange that will all previous info on 767 and 747 with this engine type fitted this event occured.
.
Still very strange that will all previous info on 767 and 747 with this engine type fitted this event occured.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alty
For info: current GE powered A330s use CF6-80E1 not -80C2. Does that change the fact that the engines flamed out....nope......but the cause may not be the same as on the -80C2s.
TH
For info: current GE powered A330s use CF6-80E1 not -80C2. Does that change the fact that the engines flamed out....nope......but the cause may not be the same as on the -80C2s.
TH
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: tunisia
Age: 54
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Wodrick
Received Tonight
FROM : AIRBUS CUSTOMER SERVICES TOULOUSE
TO : ALL A330 OPERATORS
OPERATORS INFORMATION TELEX - OPERATORS INFORMATION TELEX
AND
FLIGHT OPERATIONS TELEX - FLIGHT OPERATIONS TELEX
TO: ALL A330 OPERATORS
SUBJECT: ATA 72 - A330 DUAL ENGINE FLAME OUT
OUR REF: SE 999.0069/JS dated 09 JUNE 2006
CLASSIFICATION: INCIDENT - ADVICE (FLIGHT OPERATIONS)
REFERENCE
- OIT SE 999.0067/06/JS dated 02 JUNE 2006
1. PURPOSE
The purpose of OIT/FOT is to provide latest update and to provide operational
recommendations on the dual engine flame out event reported through
OIT ref. SE 999.0067/06/JS dated 02 JUNE 2006.
2. EVENT DESCRIPTION
On 1 June 2006 an A330-200 aircraft, equipped with General Electric (GE) CF6-80E1
engines, experienced a dual engine flame out during descent around flight level 200.
Both engines quickly recovered and a safe landing was performed.
3. INVESTIGATION STATUS
The investigation into this event is led by the Investigation Authorities with assistance from
Airbus. The investigation is still in its early stages, however, DFDR preliminary analysis has
shown that:
- During descent, while engines started to accelerate for aircraft altitude capture, both engines
flamed out simultaneously.
- Both engines automatically relit after flame out, and recovered within approximately 45 seconds.
- Engine Anti Ice had been selected ON during the descent, and Wing Anti Ice had been
selected ON shortly prior to the event.
- Aircraft systems behavior was normal including automatic RAT extension.
Boroscope inspections have been performed on both engines without significant findings.
Based on the above, the initial Airbus/GE view is that this event is similar to other power loss
events at altitudes above 10 000 ft attributed to inclement weather as experienced on CF6-80
engines installed on various aircraft types.
The aircraft returned to service on 7 June 06.
4. OPERATIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS
Waiting for final investigation results, in order to increase the fuel/air ratio in the engine so as
to mitigate the possibility of experiencing an engine flame out, the following provisional
procedure is recommended:
? If inclement weather/icing conditions are expected at any time during descent or if convective activity is identified by the weather radar in the vicinity of the aircraft flight path:
At top of descent:
- ENG ANTI ICE__ON
- WING ANTI ICE_..ON
- PACK FLOW___HI
Below 10000 feet :
Resume normal anti ice and pack flow operation according to weather conditions.
Note that the fuel consumption and the idle thrust will slightly increase when selecting ENG ANTI ICE_ON, WING ANTI ICE_ON, and PACK FLOW_HI.
Final operational recommendations will be implemented in the FCOM/QRH via OEB or TR.
5. FOLLOW-UP PLAN
An update will be provided by 16 June 06.
FROM : AIRBUS CUSTOMER SERVICES TOULOUSE
TO : ALL A330 OPERATORS
OPERATORS INFORMATION TELEX - OPERATORS INFORMATION TELEX
AND
FLIGHT OPERATIONS TELEX - FLIGHT OPERATIONS TELEX
TO: ALL A330 OPERATORS
SUBJECT: ATA 72 - A330 DUAL ENGINE FLAME OUT
OUR REF: SE 999.0069/JS dated 09 JUNE 2006
CLASSIFICATION: INCIDENT - ADVICE (FLIGHT OPERATIONS)
REFERENCE
- OIT SE 999.0067/06/JS dated 02 JUNE 2006
1. PURPOSE
The purpose of OIT/FOT is to provide latest update and to provide operational
recommendations on the dual engine flame out event reported through
OIT ref. SE 999.0067/06/JS dated 02 JUNE 2006.
2. EVENT DESCRIPTION
On 1 June 2006 an A330-200 aircraft, equipped with General Electric (GE) CF6-80E1
engines, experienced a dual engine flame out during descent around flight level 200.
Both engines quickly recovered and a safe landing was performed.
3. INVESTIGATION STATUS
The investigation into this event is led by the Investigation Authorities with assistance from
Airbus. The investigation is still in its early stages, however, DFDR preliminary analysis has
shown that:
- During descent, while engines started to accelerate for aircraft altitude capture, both engines
flamed out simultaneously.
- Both engines automatically relit after flame out, and recovered within approximately 45 seconds.
- Engine Anti Ice had been selected ON during the descent, and Wing Anti Ice had been
selected ON shortly prior to the event.
- Aircraft systems behavior was normal including automatic RAT extension.
Boroscope inspections have been performed on both engines without significant findings.
Based on the above, the initial Airbus/GE view is that this event is similar to other power loss
events at altitudes above 10 000 ft attributed to inclement weather as experienced on CF6-80
engines installed on various aircraft types.
The aircraft returned to service on 7 June 06.
4. OPERATIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS
Waiting for final investigation results, in order to increase the fuel/air ratio in the engine so as
to mitigate the possibility of experiencing an engine flame out, the following provisional
procedure is recommended:
? If inclement weather/icing conditions are expected at any time during descent or if convective activity is identified by the weather radar in the vicinity of the aircraft flight path:
At top of descent:
- ENG ANTI ICE__ON
- WING ANTI ICE_..ON
- PACK FLOW___HI
Below 10000 feet :
Resume normal anti ice and pack flow operation according to weather conditions.
Note that the fuel consumption and the idle thrust will slightly increase when selecting ENG ANTI ICE_ON, WING ANTI ICE_ON, and PACK FLOW_HI.
Final operational recommendations will be implemented in the FCOM/QRH via OEB or TR.
5. FOLLOW-UP PLAN
An update will be provided by 16 June 06.
i want to add more information that the incident happen in qatar airways flight qr889 from inc-pvg at time 1400utc and the the crew did exlcellant jope
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes - understood.
My point is that the 80E1 is a fairly mild derivative of the 80C2, and was probably certified based on a "same core" philosophy - i.e. the high compressor, burner and high turbine are essentially identical in design to the 80C2. The fact that the fan diameter of an 80E1 is a few inches larger than an 80C2 is probably not of consequence to flameout resistance. By the same token, there are plenty of 80A engines out there on early 767 airplanes. I think I have heard that they were taking the same prevention measures as for the 80C2 operators.
The fact that GE/Airbus are recommending the same operational prevention measures as the other -80 engines might suggest that they believe the 80E1 has the same issue - it even says that in the operator letter posted earlier. Perhaps a -80 is a -80 regardless of A, E or C2.
Does anyone know if Airbus released these operational recommendations for the A300 and A310? Also, how many A330's with 80E1 engines are out there?
My point is that the 80E1 is a fairly mild derivative of the 80C2, and was probably certified based on a "same core" philosophy - i.e. the high compressor, burner and high turbine are essentially identical in design to the 80C2. The fact that the fan diameter of an 80E1 is a few inches larger than an 80C2 is probably not of consequence to flameout resistance. By the same token, there are plenty of 80A engines out there on early 767 airplanes. I think I have heard that they were taking the same prevention measures as for the 80C2 operators.
The fact that GE/Airbus are recommending the same operational prevention measures as the other -80 engines might suggest that they believe the 80E1 has the same issue - it even says that in the operator letter posted earlier. Perhaps a -80 is a -80 regardless of A, E or C2.
Does anyone know if Airbus released these operational recommendations for the A300 and A310? Also, how many A330's with 80E1 engines are out there?
Last edited by Alty; 20th Jun 2006 at 17:06.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: zz plural 5
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Airbus item above mentions previous flame-outs on the cf6-80 family above 10000ft,doeas anybody have a link to further info?I have always thought that the cf6 was pretty agricultural in comparison to a Rolls,and I have seen what happens when one lets go.I think I will select cont relight in the descent permanently, in future, if there is any moisture around!
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Usually Oz
Posts: 732
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Further to my previous post, a chat with an expert much closer to the drama elicited that the "E" series core is different from the "C" series such that this problem isn't the same as the B744 problem. Indeed, another A330 operator under almost identical circumstances had a single failure shortly after the double; both apparently associated with icing.
Sorry for the red herring!
G'day
Sorry for the red herring!
G'day
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Europe
Posts: 341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good article on the subect in Flight at;
http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2006/06/13/207165/GE+investigates+double+CF6-80+flame-out+on+Qatar+A330-200+into+Shanghai%2c+believed+to+be+type's.html
http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2006/06/13/207165/GE+investigates+double+CF6-80+flame-out+on+Qatar+A330-200+into+Shanghai%2c+believed+to+be+type's.html
