PPRuNe Forums


Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 5th Jun 2006, 09:19   #1 (permalink)
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Europe
Posts: 339
Qatar Airways A330 Dual Engine Flameout

Another website http://www.jacdec.de reports the following.
The funny thing is that it quotes PPRuNe as the source. Is something amiss?
-----
Quote:
DATE: 01.06.2006
LOCAL TIME: evening
LOCATION: Shanghai-Intl AP (ZSPD)
COUNTRY: China
AIRLINE: Qatar AW
TYPE: Airbus A330-202
REGISTRATION: A7-ACJ
C/N: 746
AGE: 0 y + 1 m
OPERATION: ISP
FLIGHT No.: -
FROM: Shanghai
TO: Doha VIA: -
OCCUPANTS: PAX: - CREW: -
FATALITIES: PAX: 0 CREW: 0 OTHER: 0
INJURIES: PAX: 0 CREW: 0 OTHER: 0
DAMAGE TO AIRCRAFT: minor / none
After take off, the aircraft suffered a double engine flameout due to unknown reasons. However the pilots managed to restart both engines and returned safely to Shanghai.
SOURCE(S): PPRuNe
320DRIVER is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2006, 19:15   #2 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 460
Talking

Must be some good info on a twin that has both engines shut down during flight, the previous post mentions after take off, I wonder how long after T/O they shut down.???

I remember in the mid/late 80s, a few 757/767s had dual shut downs during flight, think reason was pilots using fuel cock instead off EEC switches during a drill for EEC failure, think Boeing view was just a crew problem.

However after a 757 or 767 departing SFO(i think) switched em off at 2500ft, FAA moved quick, temp Mod actioned to have a little plastic or wood block fitted between fuel cocks(not poss to operate both fuel cocks with one hand now) perm Mod to move the EEC buttons away from the fuel cocks.

I would like to hear the CVR from the SFO event, I can guess a few words that may of got a mention that day.!!!!!!!!!!!!

Any info on this 330 would be good.!!!???
Joetom is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2006, 22:26   #3 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: 30 West
Age: 59
Posts: 926
On 1 June 2006 an A330-200 aircraft, equipped with 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.

The investigation into this event is being led by the Investigation Authorities with assistance from Airbus. The investigation is in its early stages. An update will be provided when additional information is available and agreed for dispatch by the Investigation Authorities.
javelin is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2006, 17:19   #4 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: PBD01
Posts: 52
engines were re-lite 2 minutes after initial flame out due to heavy water ingestion.. ( monsoon type rains )

thanx to the auto igintion system of the aircraft and ability to auto start.

good machine the 330.. very well protected.
Wango Z Tango is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2006, 23:31   #5 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 49
Posts: 1,584
The GE engines on this 330 were not protected at all from this event - apparently they did indeed flameout. The amount of water ingestion must have been huge (igniters ON - Well beyond any test scenario) or (more likely) no ignition was commanded ON by the aircraft systems.

As I understand it, both the Pratt and GE equipped A330s have new-gen FADECs. For the Pratt equipped A330, there are 5 conditions that will trigger the igniters other than engine start:

Anti-Ice ON
In-Flight Flame-Out
In-Flight Surge
TO/GA/Flex Mode
Approach Idle

Standard OPS would require continuous ignition in this kind of weather condition. Since the A330 has no direct igniter controls, is this accomplished by selecting engine Anti-Ice ON ?

And while idle is not the prudent power setting for heavy precip, would not flight idle automatically power the igniters on this aircraft ?
vapilot2004 is online now  
Old 7th Jun 2006, 04:16   #6 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: PBD01
Posts: 52
well.. your right about some of the ignition information.. as for Approach idle.. the ignition will only come on when you have selected flap to position 3 or 4.. on GE and all new 330 aircraft ( as this one was only 2 weeks since delivery ) wing anti-ice does NOT give auto ignition system any more.. althought the ignition can be selected manually..
so far it is assumed that there might have been a failure in the ignition system in general, but that does not explain the quick re-light ( 1 minute for the first engine)

airbus sent a team to investigate.
Wango Z Tango is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2006, 05:43   #7 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: HK
Posts: 97
you can simply put the ignition on by selecting the switch to IGNITION
GANKER is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2006, 10:42   #8 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 186
Heard from an A330 driver that they are now advised to set packs to high at top of descent. This advice came out in the last few days which I suspect is related to the event. Are these engines susceptible to compressor stall at low power during descent?

Last edited by Trash Hauler; 7th Jun 2006 at 11:02.
Trash Hauler is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2006, 11:22   #9 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: EU
Posts: 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wango Z Tango
so far it is assumed that there might have been a failure in the ignition system in general, but that does not explain the quick re-light ( 1 minute for the first engine)
Where does your info come from?
A jet engine has a continous combustion, so it doesnot need ignition (other than for start or as protection). So how can it fail when it is not even on?
The relight(s) only illustrates that the ignition system worked perfect!

Very interested in the outcome!!
golfyankeesierra is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2006, 14:47   #10 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,716
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfyankeesierra
Where does your info come from?
A jet engine has a continous combustion, so it doesnot need ignition (other than for start or as protection). So how can it fail when it is not even on?
The relight(s) only illustrates that the ignition system worked perfect!
Very interested in the outcome!!
Agree

I am also very interested as to the correlation between the inflight powersetting conditions (at idle) when they entered the precip vs the engine certification conditions in severe weather. If indeed this is a weather foul-up event
lomapaseo is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2006, 23:03   #11 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Usually Oz
Posts: 735
Exclamation

You may find that this is a carry-on from the same problem on GE equipped B744's with the same suggested fix. W/x conditions are prescribed for the B744 selection of packs, etc., but in a twin [despite 2 being as good as 3 or 4?] it's safer to do it all the time.

G'day
Feather #3 is offline  
Old 8th Jun 2006, 03:39   #12 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 49
Posts: 1,584
Quote:
you can simply put the ignition on by selecting the switch to IGNITION
Ganker, do you mean that Start switch on the overhead, set it to Start/Ignition, then ?

That switch will spring back on ya in another type I am more familiar with.

I think they will find that it was either buckets of rain beyond anything GE planned for (and certified) or - more likely - there was no ignition being commanded on for whatever reason or - unlikely - the engines were still at idle.
vapilot2004 is online now  
Old 9th Jun 2006, 11:31   #13 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 460
Talking

Am still looking for the first posts on this item, anyone know where they be.
.
Still not much info after 8 days, anyone got the info.???
Joetom is offline  
Old 9th Jun 2006, 11:33   #14 (permalink)

Only half a speed-brake
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Looking for a job ...
Age: 40
Posts: 1,755
Probably not as there is no overhead switch on the bus - well, pack hi flow is, of course. There is combined crank/norm/ignition-or-start switch on the central pedestal and it is not spring loaded in any way.

FD
(the un-real)
FlightDetent is offline  
Old 9th Jun 2006, 19:18   #15 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 49
Posts: 1,584
Quote:
Probably not as there is no overhead switch on the bus - well, pack hi flow is, of course. There is combined crank/norm/ignition-or-start switch on the central pedestal and it is not spring loaded in any way.
Unlike some machinery I am more familiar with - with a Start switch that is sometimes solenoid held for a bit. The overhead reference was also my attempt at some small (perhaps very) humor.

Variety must surely be the spice of life - and I do need to get around a bit more.
vapilot2004 is online now  
Old 10th Jun 2006, 07:48   #16 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: East Andalucia
Age: 67
Posts: 699
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.
Wodrick is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2006, 11:19   #17 (permalink)
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Europe
Posts: 339
Some good info starting to come out.

My thoughts: The now confirmed dual flame-out most probably was due to some external factor. These engines are manufactured to such a degree of precision that their performance, and hence response to external factors, would be identical.

An example of this amazing precision is noting that with two (or more ) new engines, such as installed on this aircraft (1 month old), the fuel used for both engines, even after long flights will be the same to the nearest KGs, at the most.

What may have happened is that the engines encountered a particular condition e.g. quantity of water ingestion, at a specific OAT, at a specific power output and direction (i.e. decel/acel), a specific aircraft speed, specific density ALT etc. that could not be handled by the engines.

The incident happened close to an airport, (my assumption since they were in descent), so probably the investigators could even have ground Doppler WX radar records of the event day to establish what the rainfall intensity was at the time.

The fix could be something simple as a FADEC 'tweak' to take into account such conditions and more stringent operational recommendations re: flying in inclement weather.

Well done to Airbus and GE for producing an airframe/engine combination that recovered brilliantly from what could have been a potentially disastrous scenario and not forgetting the crew, who handled it in a way as not to make headline news! Good stuff
320DRIVER is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2006, 14:16   #18 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,716
Quote:
from 320DRIVER These engines are manufactured to such a degree of precision that their........performance,
My immediate thoughts was to replace the word performance above with the word failure

Not withstanding the directness of Airbus in illustrating the probable cause and temporary corrective action, I am disturbed that a known problem has migrated from historical service experience into brand new engines on a brand new aircraft. Certainly not very comforting that anybody out there has consulted a lessons learned notebook.

Where are the regulators in all this?
lomapaseo is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2006, 14:21   #19 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: On the dark side of the moon
Posts: 856
Dump enough water into any fire (including a turbofan), and it will go out. How would you propose the regulators handle this? Prohibit flying in rain?
J.O. is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2006, 14:45   #20 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,716
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.O.
Dump enough water into any fire (including a turbofan), and it will go out. How would you propose the regulators handle this? Prohibit flying in rain?

By ensuring that the product can endure an encounter with severe weather to provide freedom from flame out up to no more than one event in 100 million hours.

The flip side of this, is how often are you willing to have a multiple engine flame out when flying in rain of unknown quantity?
lomapaseo is offline  
Closed Thread


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 09:38.


1996-2012 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1