9 Hurt in Air Transat Emergency Landing in Azores
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Dubai
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry guys....all the speculation and innuendo of this post is entirely unfoundered..here's the facts according to the Gulf News 25 August (AFP report);
"....Portuguese emigre passenger Jose Gasper said those on board were gripped by panic as the plane, which had sprung a carburetor leak, dipped alarmingly- and repeatedly- while making its descent......."
All I can say is that the A330 must have f8$%#@n big carburetors!
All credit to the pilots though, despite this wonderful reporting.
"....Portuguese emigre passenger Jose Gasper said those on board were gripped by panic as the plane, which had sprung a carburetor leak, dipped alarmingly- and repeatedly- while making its descent......."
All I can say is that the A330 must have f8$%#@n big carburetors!
All credit to the pilots though, despite this wonderful reporting.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Timbuktu Pilots Union HQ
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Become a parcel, then You will have more than 2 engines in ER - Ops. 
Thanks to the guy who put the island on the right spot.
Congratulation to the fellows who made this unbelievable Job
Thanks to the guy who put the island on the right spot.
Congratulation to the fellows who made this unbelievable Job
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Widgeon, without ETOPS aircraft must fly within 300NM of a suitable airport, with ETOPS aircraft must fly within 180 minutes (on one engine?) from a suitable field. My understanding is that airlines can be certified for not only 180 minutes but 120 and 90 minutes as well. Can anyone expand further on this?
I understand that Skyservice lost their ETOPS for their A330 in Europe a while ago due to two engine failures within a couple hundred hours of each other. The engine failures were the fault of the engine manufacturer, my question is this: Are the aircraft and engine companies (Boeing, Airbus, GE, Rolls-Royce) ever held responsible financially for the airlines hardships due to losing their ETOPS certification?
I understand that Skyservice lost their ETOPS for their A330 in Europe a while ago due to two engine failures within a couple hundred hours of each other. The engine failures were the fault of the engine manufacturer, my question is this: Are the aircraft and engine companies (Boeing, Airbus, GE, Rolls-Royce) ever held responsible financially for the airlines hardships due to losing their ETOPS certification?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Did a bit more research on TC web site , is the reduced ETOPS 60 mins at single engine cruise speed as opposed to 180 mins ? what is single engine cruise speed for A330 ?.
Thanks Darryl , I was looking for more info on the Airbus web site ( no detailed tech info)
[ 25 August 2001: Message edited by: widgeon ]
Thanks Darryl , I was looking for more info on the Airbus web site ( no detailed tech info)
[ 25 August 2001: Message edited by: widgeon ]
short flights long nights
What ever caused it, all I can say is, to EACH and EVERYONE of the crew (flight deck and cabin alike), a cool, smooth job people. Very well done, and my kindest thoughts to you all, (because I hope I never have to prove myself in a situation like that). Once again, WELL DONE TO ALL 
Keeping Danny in Sandwiches
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some of you guys are wondering if the A330's ETOPS should be withdrawn.
Shouldn't the question be asked of its Airworthiness Certificate?
What next - flush the bog and the gear goes down?
Shouldn't the question be asked of its Airworthiness Certificate?
What next - flush the bog and the gear goes down?
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: us
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to Reuters, Air Transat's routings must now be within one hour's flying time of an airport.
"Worried officials with Canada's Transport Ministry in Ottawa did not ground Air Transat, but limited the airline's operating authority on its three Airbus 330s, requiring the company to fly the jets closer to airports on long-haul routes.
Instead of flying in a more direct line to Europe, which meant Air Transat's Airbus 330s
could be up to two hours away from the nearest airport, the jets must now follow a more northerly route near Greenland or Iceland to ensure they are no more than one hour from an airport, Canadian officials said.
"We're very, very concerned about this,'' Art LaFlamme, director general of civil aviation at Transport Canada, told Reuters.
"To my knowledge this is the first instance of this occurring in Canada or even worldwide,'' he added.
LaFlamme was referring to indications that the airliner continued to lose fuel during the flight despite design specifications for the Airbus which allow the flight crew to shut down a troubled engine and reroute or conserve fuel while using the remaining functional engine.
"The system is designed so that they can fly on one engine...so the continued loss of fuel
is probably the most perplexing situation here that has to be explained,'' he said.
Transport Canada also plans to audit Air Transat's flight and maintenance operations to ensure they meet regulatory requirements.
Air Transat's Lemay said the airliner had been in service since 1999."
"Worried officials with Canada's Transport Ministry in Ottawa did not ground Air Transat, but limited the airline's operating authority on its three Airbus 330s, requiring the company to fly the jets closer to airports on long-haul routes.
Instead of flying in a more direct line to Europe, which meant Air Transat's Airbus 330s
could be up to two hours away from the nearest airport, the jets must now follow a more northerly route near Greenland or Iceland to ensure they are no more than one hour from an airport, Canadian officials said.
"We're very, very concerned about this,'' Art LaFlamme, director general of civil aviation at Transport Canada, told Reuters.
"To my knowledge this is the first instance of this occurring in Canada or even worldwide,'' he added.
LaFlamme was referring to indications that the airliner continued to lose fuel during the flight despite design specifications for the Airbus which allow the flight crew to shut down a troubled engine and reroute or conserve fuel while using the remaining functional engine.
"The system is designed so that they can fly on one engine...so the continued loss of fuel
is probably the most perplexing situation here that has to be explained,'' he said.
Transport Canada also plans to audit Air Transat's flight and maintenance operations to ensure they meet regulatory requirements.
Air Transat's Lemay said the airliner had been in service since 1999."
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Sweden.
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
About the 60-min non-ETOPS: Max 60 minutes from an adequate airport at the selected one-engine-inoperative speed in still air and ISA conditions.
The max distance acc to JAR-OPS 1.245 depends on the choice of engines, Air Transat with their RR engines should then have a maximum distance of 430 Nm from an adequate airfield (but Air Transat might not operate acc to JAR-OPS).
About fuel dumping: Swissair don´t have it, Novair don´t have it.
The max distance acc to JAR-OPS 1.245 depends on the choice of engines, Air Transat with their RR engines should then have a maximum distance of 430 Nm from an adequate airfield (but Air Transat might not operate acc to JAR-OPS).
About fuel dumping: Swissair don´t have it, Novair don´t have it.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SOPS (and others?),
No question that the flight crew did an incredible job and cannot be praised too highly for accomplishing the landing but, IF Canadian newspaper reports can be believed, the cabin crew did not all function coolly and smoothly, according to quotes from passengers. Apparently, the passengers were eating breakfast when suddenly the F/A's started rushing around to gather up the dishes. An announcement was made that the passengers should prepare for an emergency landing: shoes to be removed, lifejackets to be donned. Oxygen masks dropped. One passenger is quoted as recalling "We had the (cabin) crew running around, yelling at each other and yelling at passengers". The same passenger stated that the F/A giving instructions over the P/A system in English was calm and reassuring but the one speaking Portuguese, who followed, sounded nervous and close to tears. The passenger, a 24 year-old student helicopter pilot, estimated the aircraft glided for about 7 minutes. Other press reports give an unpowered flight time of between 10 and 23 minutes.According to a Portuguese official, the aircraft came to a stop 33 minutes after declaring an emergency.It appears that the flight crew's emergency advisory to the cabin crew and passengers was sudden and no doubt led to a certain amount of panic among the F/A's (understandable if unfortunate).
We've only heard the beginnings of this story, all of it second-hand. Lots more to come out, that's for sure.
Rockhound
No question that the flight crew did an incredible job and cannot be praised too highly for accomplishing the landing but, IF Canadian newspaper reports can be believed, the cabin crew did not all function coolly and smoothly, according to quotes from passengers. Apparently, the passengers were eating breakfast when suddenly the F/A's started rushing around to gather up the dishes. An announcement was made that the passengers should prepare for an emergency landing: shoes to be removed, lifejackets to be donned. Oxygen masks dropped. One passenger is quoted as recalling "We had the (cabin) crew running around, yelling at each other and yelling at passengers". The same passenger stated that the F/A giving instructions over the P/A system in English was calm and reassuring but the one speaking Portuguese, who followed, sounded nervous and close to tears. The passenger, a 24 year-old student helicopter pilot, estimated the aircraft glided for about 7 minutes. Other press reports give an unpowered flight time of between 10 and 23 minutes.According to a Portuguese official, the aircraft came to a stop 33 minutes after declaring an emergency.It appears that the flight crew's emergency advisory to the cabin crew and passengers was sudden and no doubt led to a certain amount of panic among the F/A's (understandable if unfortunate).
We've only heard the beginnings of this story, all of it second-hand. Lots more to come out, that's for sure.
Rockhound
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guvnor
>If you have a serious technical emergency and return to land, is it really sensible landing with a full fuel load? Surely a big ball of flame may well result??<
For someone who purports to know so much about aviation you are remarkably naive. As a mere "systems monitor" I am at a loss as to why you would think/assume that returning with a full fuel load in a "serious technical emergency" should result in a "a big ball of flame"
Every departure brief I give contains words along the lines of "in the event of smoke/fire in the cabin or any fire which does not extinguish, we will return here immediately (weather permitting) and accept the landing mass is X tonnes above the NORMAL limit" This is on an aircraft with no fuel dump and a considerable difference between the max TOM and max landing mass (normal) and could take in excess of 4 hours to burn that fuel off.
What would you do if you had a dump system fitted AND engine fire indications? Perhaps go for a bigger fireball in the air?
As I say your naiveity astounds me.
[ 25 August 2001: Message edited by: Airboeing ]
>If you have a serious technical emergency and return to land, is it really sensible landing with a full fuel load? Surely a big ball of flame may well result??<
For someone who purports to know so much about aviation you are remarkably naive. As a mere "systems monitor" I am at a loss as to why you would think/assume that returning with a full fuel load in a "serious technical emergency" should result in a "a big ball of flame"
Every departure brief I give contains words along the lines of "in the event of smoke/fire in the cabin or any fire which does not extinguish, we will return here immediately (weather permitting) and accept the landing mass is X tonnes above the NORMAL limit" This is on an aircraft with no fuel dump and a considerable difference between the max TOM and max landing mass (normal) and could take in excess of 4 hours to burn that fuel off.
What would you do if you had a dump system fitted AND engine fire indications? Perhaps go for a bigger fireball in the air?
As I say your naiveity astounds me.
[ 25 August 2001: Message edited by: Airboeing ]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Ok, I'll take the bait ... what would happen if you had either a total hydraulic failure and/or a total systems failure? Obviously you'd need to get back onto the ground asap - but surely if you have a situation where the gear might collapse and/or a brake fire break out (as happened with the Transat aircraft) then surely a full fuel load would make life rather interesting?
And, if your position is that dumping fuel is a waste of time and money - why is it that airliners have dump systems?
I'm not trying to score points here - I'm genuinely puzzled as to why Airbus think they don't need something everyone else does!
And, if your position is that dumping fuel is a waste of time and money - why is it that airliners have dump systems?
I'm not trying to score points here - I'm genuinely puzzled as to why Airbus think they don't need something everyone else does!
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You just won't give up spouting, will you Guv? Even when you reveal your utter ignorance to thousands...
At least we know now why double engine failure is in the Conversion syllabus...
At least we know now why double engine failure is in the Conversion syllabus...
Guest
Posts: n/a
Sheesh Guv, when are you going to get it? Most people on here with any knowledge of the airline industry, especially us 'systems monitors' as you like to call pilots, have no respect for you or your self promoting bovine excretia. You singularly fail to realise that your delusions of supposed knowledge about the job only come back to haunt you and prove to the rest of us that you are nothing but a fraud and a pilot groupie who uses Pprune as a laxative for your own mental constipation.
Never mind taking the bait, you fail to realise that the only people you manage to impress, and then only for a short while, are naive wannabes who are easily led by your fraudulent claims of being an airline exec and former pilot. If you or any of your camp followers need proof that you are so full of your own self importance and your ignorance of issues that are necessary for us 'systems monitors' to be aware of I will try and explain a few basic for you:
You asked "And, if your position is that dumping fuel is a waste of time and money - why is it that airliners have dump systems?" If you had any insight into the job that you are always so quick to spout off about you would know that a fuel dump system, if one is available, is to allow an aircraft to reduce the total amount of fuel in a particular tank... if time and circumstances permit it.
On the Boeing 767-300 for example, The capacity of the useable fuel in the tanks is 18,450Kg in each wing tank and 36,500Kg in the center tank. The total useable fuel capacity is 73,400Kg. When the 767-300 is fueled, the wing tanks must be filled first and then the remaining fuel is put in the center tank. Fuel is used first from the center tank and then from the wing tanks.
On this aircraft the fuel dump only does so from the center tank and then at a maximum rate of 1,200Kg a minute. Use your spare brain capacity to work out how long it would take to dump a full centre tank (rare as the payload would have to be substantially reduced). Don't worry, I'll do it for you because you are no doubt looking up some numbers to try and dazzle us all with your knowledge, NOT. 30 minutes to dump a full center tank and you would still have 36,900Kg in the wings which you CANT dump!
So you see, if you have a serious problem that mandates getting the plane back on the ground in a hurry, not sure what because I am only a system monitor, then you may have to hang around for 30 minutes just dumping what you can and then still have to try and land with over 35 tons of fuel still in the wings! Oh hang on. I have just thought of a problem where I may want to get the plane on the ground in a hurry without dumping fuel, an engine fire that will not extinguish or perhaps smoke in the cabin or cockpit. Those are the first two that spring immediately to mind. Guv, can you in your vast wisdom think of any others? I doubt it because you are such a Walter Mitty type that most of us on here do not fall for your bull.
The 767-300 can land above max landing weight up to and including max certified weight. It just means that it would require an overweight landing inspection after the event. Much cheaper option than us 'system monitors' losing it because we are so traumatised by the Guvs predictions about how we really are nothing more than overpaid prima donnas that just jump out of our seats in a panic, wringing our hands in grief and go sit in a corner blubbering away because we are not capable of dealing with a particular situation.
Of course if the problem is one where you still need to get back on the ground but there is no immediate danger then you would be able to go somewhere and reduce the weight but at no time does it guarantee that you will get below the max landing weight of the aircraft, just that you will be at a lower weight which gives you slower manouvering speeds and the ability to use less landing distance.
So you see Mr know-it-all Guv, SOME airliners have fuel dump systems but for someone like you who has such vast experience in this industry should know that they are not the panacea that you imagine it to be, especially if you have to get your plane on the ground within a few minutes. And if you thought that a fuel dump system could empty ALL the fuel tanks then I am glad you don't have any input on an engineering or design forum.
Finally you said "I'm not trying to score points here - I'm genuinely puzzled as to why Airbus think they don't need something everyone else does!" Frankly, I believe you ARE trying to score points as you do in EVERY one of your pathetic posts that contain one or more of your assumed gems of wisdom but which in reality only contain only the brown stuff that comes out of the south end of a northbound bull. From what has been stated, the fuel dump is a customer option on the Airbus A330. On the 757 it is not available and on the 767-300 it only dumps the center tank anyway. So your high and mighty tone as to why Airbus THINK they dont need something that everyone else does just proves to me and the vast majority of 'systems monitors' that you are in great danger of exploding if you do not use your own 'bovine excretion dump' with such frequency on thses forums.
Perhaps it is about time that the Guv found himrself somewhere else, where he can try and impress a few gullible types and left the rest of us in peace. If the mention in a different post about a few of his creditors seriously trying to find him is true then maybe once the course of the law and justice has taken its course we will all get some peace!
Never mind taking the bait, you fail to realise that the only people you manage to impress, and then only for a short while, are naive wannabes who are easily led by your fraudulent claims of being an airline exec and former pilot. If you or any of your camp followers need proof that you are so full of your own self importance and your ignorance of issues that are necessary for us 'systems monitors' to be aware of I will try and explain a few basic for you:
You asked "And, if your position is that dumping fuel is a waste of time and money - why is it that airliners have dump systems?" If you had any insight into the job that you are always so quick to spout off about you would know that a fuel dump system, if one is available, is to allow an aircraft to reduce the total amount of fuel in a particular tank... if time and circumstances permit it.
On the Boeing 767-300 for example, The capacity of the useable fuel in the tanks is 18,450Kg in each wing tank and 36,500Kg in the center tank. The total useable fuel capacity is 73,400Kg. When the 767-300 is fueled, the wing tanks must be filled first and then the remaining fuel is put in the center tank. Fuel is used first from the center tank and then from the wing tanks.
On this aircraft the fuel dump only does so from the center tank and then at a maximum rate of 1,200Kg a minute. Use your spare brain capacity to work out how long it would take to dump a full centre tank (rare as the payload would have to be substantially reduced). Don't worry, I'll do it for you because you are no doubt looking up some numbers to try and dazzle us all with your knowledge, NOT. 30 minutes to dump a full center tank and you would still have 36,900Kg in the wings which you CANT dump!
So you see, if you have a serious problem that mandates getting the plane back on the ground in a hurry, not sure what because I am only a system monitor, then you may have to hang around for 30 minutes just dumping what you can and then still have to try and land with over 35 tons of fuel still in the wings! Oh hang on. I have just thought of a problem where I may want to get the plane on the ground in a hurry without dumping fuel, an engine fire that will not extinguish or perhaps smoke in the cabin or cockpit. Those are the first two that spring immediately to mind. Guv, can you in your vast wisdom think of any others? I doubt it because you are such a Walter Mitty type that most of us on here do not fall for your bull.
The 767-300 can land above max landing weight up to and including max certified weight. It just means that it would require an overweight landing inspection after the event. Much cheaper option than us 'system monitors' losing it because we are so traumatised by the Guvs predictions about how we really are nothing more than overpaid prima donnas that just jump out of our seats in a panic, wringing our hands in grief and go sit in a corner blubbering away because we are not capable of dealing with a particular situation.
Of course if the problem is one where you still need to get back on the ground but there is no immediate danger then you would be able to go somewhere and reduce the weight but at no time does it guarantee that you will get below the max landing weight of the aircraft, just that you will be at a lower weight which gives you slower manouvering speeds and the ability to use less landing distance.
So you see Mr know-it-all Guv, SOME airliners have fuel dump systems but for someone like you who has such vast experience in this industry should know that they are not the panacea that you imagine it to be, especially if you have to get your plane on the ground within a few minutes. And if you thought that a fuel dump system could empty ALL the fuel tanks then I am glad you don't have any input on an engineering or design forum.
Finally you said "I'm not trying to score points here - I'm genuinely puzzled as to why Airbus think they don't need something everyone else does!" Frankly, I believe you ARE trying to score points as you do in EVERY one of your pathetic posts that contain one or more of your assumed gems of wisdom but which in reality only contain only the brown stuff that comes out of the south end of a northbound bull. From what has been stated, the fuel dump is a customer option on the Airbus A330. On the 757 it is not available and on the 767-300 it only dumps the center tank anyway. So your high and mighty tone as to why Airbus THINK they dont need something that everyone else does just proves to me and the vast majority of 'systems monitors' that you are in great danger of exploding if you do not use your own 'bovine excretion dump' with such frequency on thses forums.
Perhaps it is about time that the Guv found himrself somewhere else, where he can try and impress a few gullible types and left the rest of us in peace. If the mention in a different post about a few of his creditors seriously trying to find him is true then maybe once the course of the law and justice has taken its course we will all get some peace!
Iconoclast
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The home of Dudley Dooright-Where the lead dog is the only one that gets a change of scenery.
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is the story, as I understand it. The two major fuel lines going into the engine fractured or became separated just upstream of the firewall shut-off on the effected engine. This engine shut down due to fuel starvation and the remainder of the fuel drained out of the two open lines at which time the other engine shut down.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Ontario,Canada
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm...
If you **** all the fuel from one wing tank out some broken pipes then shouldn't you still have fuel in the other tank?(Assuming the crossfeed valve is closed.)I'm not familiar with the 330.
Someone asked if we train for complete loss of engine thrust. The answer is yes and even in the box it can ruin a perfectly good shirt:-)
I'm a domestic type now but spent 2 years doing ETOPS on the 767. If memory serves we had 180 minute authority and I forget the mileage but it was based on 330kts.M.80 (too lazy to do the math). I always thought you would really have to flog that one (oh so precious) engine but then nothing says you actually have to get to Magadan in three hours, just be able to. For those who don't know, Magadan is a Mig strip in Siberia and only an accountant could think of it in terms of a "suitable" alternate. And ETOPS is, after all, something that only bean counters could be fond of.
If you **** all the fuel from one wing tank out some broken pipes then shouldn't you still have fuel in the other tank?(Assuming the crossfeed valve is closed.)I'm not familiar with the 330.
Someone asked if we train for complete loss of engine thrust. The answer is yes and even in the box it can ruin a perfectly good shirt:-)
I'm a domestic type now but spent 2 years doing ETOPS on the 767. If memory serves we had 180 minute authority and I forget the mileage but it was based on 330kts.M.80 (too lazy to do the math). I always thought you would really have to flog that one (oh so precious) engine but then nothing says you actually have to get to Magadan in three hours, just be able to. For those who don't know, Magadan is a Mig strip in Siberia and only an accountant could think of it in terms of a "suitable" alternate. And ETOPS is, after all, something that only bean counters could be fond of.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was at Toronto - Pearson Airport this evening and at Terminal 3 at a gate in between two Air Transat aircraft was an SATA International A310 and on the tail it said to visit the Azores Islands. Could you imagine the irony of being an Air Transat passenger on one of those aircraft reading the newspaper about the AT emergency landing then looking out the windows and seeing an invitation to land at the same place.
Was this aircraft returing AT passengers or is SATA a regular at Toronto?
Was this aircraft returing AT passengers or is SATA a regular at Toronto?