9 Hurt in Air Transat Emergency Landing in Azores
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A number of people have shown they don’t know very much about ETOPS and/or the A330 in the comments they’ve made here. I’ve got no problem with that in most cases.
However, I understand that the person who started the thread purports to be an L1011 pilot. By his comments here, he’s proven himself to be a fraud – or the person who signed him off on his conversion course needs a serious talking-to re standards.
Guv, if you had any in the first place, you’ve blown your credibility BIG TIME in the patently silly remarks you’ve made here, proving to all and sundry that what knowledge you have of air transport ops has been learned, parrot fashion, from a textbook or from what you’ve overheard in a bar. If you ever have strapped an L1011 to your ass and lived to tell the tale, it’s mute testimony to the wonderful, forgiving, machine Kelly Johnson and the boys at Lockheed’s Skunk Works made for us ‘systems monitors’ to passively watch over.
This incident has brought home with one glaring, thankfully not fatal example what reams of written argument can never do over why pilots think they deserve more money – and recognition, even respect – than the bean counters are willing to give them in this age of almost total automation. It also shoots down in flames those who argue that automation should be used at all times.
I’ll be very interested to learn the background of the pilot – (perhaps that should read ‘pilotS’) – involved in this incident. London to a brick at least one of them had a good swag of bush flying up his sleeve before he found himself ‘monitoring’ the plastic jet where the automatics ‘always’ work.
My heartiest congratulations to all the crew. (And thank you, God, that it wasn’t me!) When the Monday morning quarterbacks, with three months at their disposal to carefully scrutinise every manual and regulation remotely pertinent to the situation you found yourselves in, decide that you didn’t get it 101% right in the few minutes you had to deal with it, remember that when push came to shove, you got your aircraft on the ground in one piece and all your passengers out of it alive. Where I come from, that means you all did an extraordinary job. Well done to you all.
And to any lawyer who takes on the case of the inevitable passenger who feels he/she was ‘traumatised’ by this incident to the point where he/she needs a couple of mill in recompense…
I think I’ll leave it at that.
However, I understand that the person who started the thread purports to be an L1011 pilot. By his comments here, he’s proven himself to be a fraud – or the person who signed him off on his conversion course needs a serious talking-to re standards.
Guv, if you had any in the first place, you’ve blown your credibility BIG TIME in the patently silly remarks you’ve made here, proving to all and sundry that what knowledge you have of air transport ops has been learned, parrot fashion, from a textbook or from what you’ve overheard in a bar. If you ever have strapped an L1011 to your ass and lived to tell the tale, it’s mute testimony to the wonderful, forgiving, machine Kelly Johnson and the boys at Lockheed’s Skunk Works made for us ‘systems monitors’ to passively watch over.
This incident has brought home with one glaring, thankfully not fatal example what reams of written argument can never do over why pilots think they deserve more money – and recognition, even respect – than the bean counters are willing to give them in this age of almost total automation. It also shoots down in flames those who argue that automation should be used at all times.
I’ll be very interested to learn the background of the pilot – (perhaps that should read ‘pilotS’) – involved in this incident. London to a brick at least one of them had a good swag of bush flying up his sleeve before he found himself ‘monitoring’ the plastic jet where the automatics ‘always’ work.
My heartiest congratulations to all the crew. (And thank you, God, that it wasn’t me!) When the Monday morning quarterbacks, with three months at their disposal to carefully scrutinise every manual and regulation remotely pertinent to the situation you found yourselves in, decide that you didn’t get it 101% right in the few minutes you had to deal with it, remember that when push came to shove, you got your aircraft on the ground in one piece and all your passengers out of it alive. Where I come from, that means you all did an extraordinary job. Well done to you all.
And to any lawyer who takes on the case of the inevitable passenger who feels he/she was ‘traumatised’ by this incident to the point where he/she needs a couple of mill in recompense…
I think I’ll leave it at that.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He and crew deserve a round...
Robert Piche, 49, the pilot of the Air Transat airplane that made an emergency landing at Lajes airport in Terciera Island, Portugal, on Friday, Aug. 24, 2001, is seen in this undated photo in Montreal. More than 50 passengers were injured Friday when the plane hit the runway and screeched to a halt after gliding without engines for 18 minutes. (AP Photo/Le Journal de Montreal)
**Please note---this is not the cockpit of a A-330-200
Doctor Bob
AirlineRumor.com
[ 26 August 2001: Message edited by: JR/FO ]
[ 26 August 2001: Message edited by: JR/FO ]
Robert Piche, 49, the pilot of the Air Transat airplane that made an emergency landing at Lajes airport in Terciera Island, Portugal, on Friday, Aug. 24, 2001, is seen in this undated photo in Montreal. More than 50 passengers were injured Friday when the plane hit the runway and screeched to a halt after gliding without engines for 18 minutes. (AP Photo/Le Journal de Montreal)
**Please note---this is not the cockpit of a A-330-200
Doctor Bob
AirlineRumor.com
[ 26 August 2001: Message edited by: JR/FO ]
[ 26 August 2001: Message edited by: JR/FO ]
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: north of CYMX
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's all so easy to criticize and elaborate when you're not in the "hot seat"! 
Unbelieveable job accomplished by that crew...
They'll never be congratulated enough, IMHO
BTW, the pax who said that the backend crew wasn't doing a good job is a wannabe helo pilot who also said, in the paper, that he found ANNOYING the fact that the elderly we're praying aloud... I think he missed a great opportunity to shut up
Unbelieveable job accomplished by that crew...
They'll never be congratulated enough, IMHO
BTW, the pax who said that the backend crew wasn't doing a good job is a wannabe helo pilot who also said, in the paper, that he found ANNOYING the fact that the elderly we're praying aloud... I think he missed a great opportunity to shut up
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Newcastle, UK
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guvnor,
Are you seriously suggesting that if you have a total hydraulic failure that you should fly around for ages burning off fuel (or even bother to wait for the fuel jettison if you are so equipped) so that you can land below MLW? You must be totally insane! First priority is always to get the aircraft onto the ground. Even if you have lost partial hydraulics. Get the aircraft on the ground before you lose more! Landing overweight does not mean the aircraft will blow up and even if you do burn fuel to get below MLW you will still have tons of it on board. Or are you suggesting that all fuel on board should be used and an engines-out glide approach is the only solution to all serious failures - just to ensure that fuel won't catch fire? Yeah, that would be great with a total hydraulic failure.
BTW, overweight landings happen ALL THE TIME. Usually in the case of a medical emergency shortly after takeoff. Are you saying that we should fly around dumping fuel every time there is a situation like this? Even with fuel jettison, a heart attack passenger would be long dead by the time you dumped enough fuel. As was mentioned earlier, it only requires an inspection.
Lazlo
[ 26 August 2001: Message edited by: Lazlo ]
Are you seriously suggesting that if you have a total hydraulic failure that you should fly around for ages burning off fuel (or even bother to wait for the fuel jettison if you are so equipped) so that you can land below MLW? You must be totally insane! First priority is always to get the aircraft onto the ground. Even if you have lost partial hydraulics. Get the aircraft on the ground before you lose more! Landing overweight does not mean the aircraft will blow up and even if you do burn fuel to get below MLW you will still have tons of it on board. Or are you suggesting that all fuel on board should be used and an engines-out glide approach is the only solution to all serious failures - just to ensure that fuel won't catch fire? Yeah, that would be great with a total hydraulic failure.
BTW, overweight landings happen ALL THE TIME. Usually in the case of a medical emergency shortly after takeoff. Are you saying that we should fly around dumping fuel every time there is a situation like this? Even with fuel jettison, a heart attack passenger would be long dead by the time you dumped enough fuel. As was mentioned earlier, it only requires an inspection.
Lazlo
[ 26 August 2001: Message edited by: Lazlo ]
Senis Semper Fidelis
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Lancashire U K
Posts: 1,288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good mroning Ppruners,
Despite the huge cock-up on the fuel uptake, what a Pilot (or pilots) this/these guy/s must be, to glide an airbus and be able to time his arrival on a lump of rock just right (with only a little damage)he should get a "Golden Globe" for it,
but I'll just bet a shilling, that somebody , somewhere will sue for the trauma, not just happy enough to be alive!
Despite the huge cock-up on the fuel uptake, what a Pilot (or pilots) this/these guy/s must be, to glide an airbus and be able to time his arrival on a lump of rock just right (with only a little damage)he should get a "Golden Globe" for it,
but I'll just bet a shilling, that somebody , somewhere will sue for the trauma, not just happy enough to be alive!
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guvnor
I believe my peers have more than made OUR point and so I just want to add one final thought. I am actually slightly hesitant to use the following example because the official report is not yet published, I believe, but I am going to take the gamble.
Swissair MD11, Nova Scotia, smoke/fire internally. It is MY understanding from that which I have so far read that the Captain of that aircraft insisted on dumping fuel to reduce landing weight whilst the Co-pilot urged him to get the aircraft on the ground NOW! IF this is indeed a true reflection of what happened then it may go the whole way to finally answer you and please, please don't grab this as an oppotunity to say that one of the "system monitors" failed, that would just be too crass even for you.
If this turns out to be incorrect then I humbly apologise to everyone for being guilty of that which I normally hate: people quoting "facts" before final reports.
I believe my peers have more than made OUR point and so I just want to add one final thought. I am actually slightly hesitant to use the following example because the official report is not yet published, I believe, but I am going to take the gamble.
Swissair MD11, Nova Scotia, smoke/fire internally. It is MY understanding from that which I have so far read that the Captain of that aircraft insisted on dumping fuel to reduce landing weight whilst the Co-pilot urged him to get the aircraft on the ground NOW! IF this is indeed a true reflection of what happened then it may go the whole way to finally answer you and please, please don't grab this as an oppotunity to say that one of the "system monitors" failed, that would just be too crass even for you.
If this turns out to be incorrect then I humbly apologise to everyone for being guilty of that which I normally hate: people quoting "facts" before final reports.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Umm, Wiley - when have I ever said that I'm an L10 jock?? 
I do, however, agree with the rest of your post. Incidentally, I'm sure you'll be interested to know that your guess about at least one of the crew having bush flying experience was spot on. The captain, Robert Piché, has been with Air Transat for 5 years prior to which he was a bush pilot for two decades, flying DC-6 for Conifair, a company specialising in low altitude forest spraying.
Ozdude - sheesh!!
[ 26 August 2001: Message edited by: The Guvnor ]
I do, however, agree with the rest of your post. Incidentally, I'm sure you'll be interested to know that your guess about at least one of the crew having bush flying experience was spot on. The captain, Robert Piché, has been with Air Transat for 5 years prior to which he was a bush pilot for two decades, flying DC-6 for Conifair, a company specialising in low altitude forest spraying.Ozdude - sheesh!!
[ 26 August 2001: Message edited by: The Guvnor ]
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Back in Blighty
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Concerning engine out gliding performance of jets...... don't know about the 330, but other jets work well with a 1:1 profile from altitude and then convert any excess energy with gear/flap/whatever's left and plan to land 1/3 down the strip.
But, so many variables can affect.... e.g. assuming the a/c was clean in the cruise, a major factor would be whether the fans sieze up or not. If so, effectively having two fixed pitch props locked solid doesn't do you any favours.
Concerning the press reports about the gliding time.... 30 000ft @ 6000 ft/min plus a bit extra means 6/7/8 min max using the SWAG technique. (Scientific Wild Arsed Guess).
Even if he could do 2000 ft/min in the glide, lets say 16/18 min @ 4nm/min = ~ 70 nm from the field. Any further needs water wings.
Lucky lucky people!!! What is it with these Canadians being in the right place at the wrong time (ref. Boeing glider into pilots old training base!)?
Next time I go across the pond, I'll insist on a Mountie up the front!!
P.S. Guv'nor.....Sheesh!!!
[ 26 August 2001: Message edited by: lostinBRU ]
But, so many variables can affect.... e.g. assuming the a/c was clean in the cruise, a major factor would be whether the fans sieze up or not. If so, effectively having two fixed pitch props locked solid doesn't do you any favours.
Concerning the press reports about the gliding time.... 30 000ft @ 6000 ft/min plus a bit extra means 6/7/8 min max using the SWAG technique. (Scientific Wild Arsed Guess).
Even if he could do 2000 ft/min in the glide, lets say 16/18 min @ 4nm/min = ~ 70 nm from the field. Any further needs water wings.
Lucky lucky people!!! What is it with these Canadians being in the right place at the wrong time (ref. Boeing glider into pilots old training base!)?
Next time I go across the pond, I'll insist on a Mountie up the front!!
P.S. Guv'nor.....Sheesh!!!
[ 26 August 2001: Message edited by: lostinBRU ]
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: ???
Age: 58
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just for your info gents the jettison fuel dump rate is 1150Kg's (2536Lb's) a minute and has two switches required for it's use (arm & active). Jettison should cease when either one of the two switches are deselected, inner tank low level sensors are dry or the fuel quantity reaches the preselected figure in the FMGEC (flight management and guidance envelope computers). It will be very interesting to find the source of the fuel leak.
Must agree with all other (positive) comments regarding the crew, a job very well done.
Must agree with all other (positive) comments regarding the crew, a job very well done.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Timbuktu Pilots Union HQ
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuel Dump Provisions are also an option on the 767s.
IMHO spending money for that pays back after the first near MTOW - Landing which in almost every case ends up in flat tires, glowing axes and fire brigade appearance at the aircraft. (Think of the PAX !)
Just a small amount of "return to field" landings are due to fire or any other immediate reason, so that you have time enough to get rid of 30 tons of fuel (767) in order not to stress the aircraft and it´s value which pays off, too.
High density seating gives You a high ZFW. So at least the "english style" interior should make use of the option.
As far as I know a dual hydraulic failure of an A330-200 gives you a required landing distance of some 3500 m.(heard of)
Good for the guys operating out of Orlando with the near by Kennedy Space Center....
IMHO spending money for that pays back after the first near MTOW - Landing which in almost every case ends up in flat tires, glowing axes and fire brigade appearance at the aircraft. (Think of the PAX !)
Just a small amount of "return to field" landings are due to fire or any other immediate reason, so that you have time enough to get rid of 30 tons of fuel (767) in order not to stress the aircraft and it´s value which pays off, too.
High density seating gives You a high ZFW. So at least the "english style" interior should make use of the option.
As far as I know a dual hydraulic failure of an A330-200 gives you a required landing distance of some 3500 m.(heard of)
Good for the guys operating out of Orlando with the near by Kennedy Space Center....
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Richthofen
3500m landing distance required sounds more like an anti-skid failure type figure but I don't know the A330 at all. Would be surprised if your figure is correct though for dual hydraulic failure, I would expect A/Skid to still be operable through a reserve/backup system or accumulators.
3500m landing distance required sounds more like an anti-skid failure type figure but I don't know the A330 at all. Would be surprised if your figure is correct though for dual hydraulic failure, I would expect A/Skid to still be operable through a reserve/backup system or accumulators.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought this to be a thread about the Air Transat A330 incident at LPLA recently.
But as usual, it has ended up in a slanging match between frêle ego's who know their stuff and someone who has a somewhat thicker skin and, not being a pilot, the victim of his so-called ignorance. Ignorance for not having ATP or Engineer's level aircraft knowledge, to be exact. But maybe the Guvnor (I have never met him, by the way) 's an aviation professional, but in a different field. Pilots still seem to forget that it takes more that just them to form an airline. And as this is a forum for aviation pro's, he has as much right to vent his opinion and -all he was doing in my eyes- seek background information from other aviation pro's, pilots or not. I know the man has slipped up badly in the past (I remember Laywer Girl in particular), but so have I and most other people, maybe just not so public.
In short, keep to the subject, and if you can't stop slagging others off, them it's maybe YOU who should keep quiet.
I feel a response coming......
[ 26 August 2001: Message edited by: Deep Float ]
But as usual, it has ended up in a slanging match between frêle ego's who know their stuff and someone who has a somewhat thicker skin and, not being a pilot, the victim of his so-called ignorance. Ignorance for not having ATP or Engineer's level aircraft knowledge, to be exact. But maybe the Guvnor (I have never met him, by the way) 's an aviation professional, but in a different field. Pilots still seem to forget that it takes more that just them to form an airline. And as this is a forum for aviation pro's, he has as much right to vent his opinion and -all he was doing in my eyes- seek background information from other aviation pro's, pilots or not. I know the man has slipped up badly in the past (I remember Laywer Girl in particular), but so have I and most other people, maybe just not so public.
In short, keep to the subject, and if you can't stop slagging others off, them it's maybe YOU who should keep quiet.
I feel a response coming......
[ 26 August 2001: Message edited by: Deep Float ]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Air Transat press release at : [URL=http://www.newswire.ca/releases/August2001/25/c2342.html]http://www.newswire.ca/releases/August2001/25/c2342.html[/ URL]
Extract from the release:
"THE TS 236 FLIGHT INCIDENT AND INVESTIGATION
Flight TS 236 left Toronto on time at 8:10 p.m. EST on August 23. While the Airbus A330-200, operating since 1999, was flying at a cruising altitude of 39,000 feet and was around 30 minutes from the Azores, a technical problem caused a significant loss of fuel. The captain then took appropriate measures.
He decided to direct the aircraft towards Terceira, the closest airport, and had passengers prepare for a possible ditching - a procedure required for all emergencies over water. Both aircraft engines ceased functioning several minutes prior to landing. Eight of the ten landing gear wheels burst on touchdown. No fire or smoke was reported in the cabin. Emergency evacuation procedures were rapidly and systematically implemented. The hypothesis of incorrect fuelling in Toronto has been definitely ruled out."
[ 26 August 2001: Message edited by: D Beaver ]
Extract from the release:
"THE TS 236 FLIGHT INCIDENT AND INVESTIGATION
Flight TS 236 left Toronto on time at 8:10 p.m. EST on August 23. While the Airbus A330-200, operating since 1999, was flying at a cruising altitude of 39,000 feet and was around 30 minutes from the Azores, a technical problem caused a significant loss of fuel. The captain then took appropriate measures.
He decided to direct the aircraft towards Terceira, the closest airport, and had passengers prepare for a possible ditching - a procedure required for all emergencies over water. Both aircraft engines ceased functioning several minutes prior to landing. Eight of the ten landing gear wheels burst on touchdown. No fire or smoke was reported in the cabin. Emergency evacuation procedures were rapidly and systematically implemented. The hypothesis of incorrect fuelling in Toronto has been definitely ruled out."
[ 26 August 2001: Message edited by: D Beaver ]
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely Peter B (vfrpilotpb) has put his finger on the nub of the problem when he cites a "huge cock-up" on the fuel uptake by the A330 in Toronto. (I wonder where he got that tidbit?). The local newspaper here, the Ottawa Citizen, quotes Portuguese air force captain Antonio Santos, "PR officer for the Azores air zone", as saying that when TS 236 declared an emergency, they advised they had only 10 minutes fuel left and were at least 20 min from the Azores. How can a "fuel leak" remain undetected for so long, until such a critically low fuel reserve remains? Surely a modern aircraft cannot suddenly lose fuel catastrophically and remain in the air? Did the flight depart Toronto significantly short on fuel? Even then, why did things become interesting only when 10 min of fuel remaining were indicated?
Re Gumbi's posting regarding the actions of the cabin crew: I've read the Ottawa Citizen and the Globe and Mail accounts and nowhere is Rodrigues, the student pilot, quoted as being "annoyed" by the audible prayers of his fellow-passengers. Frankly,I take my hat off to them for having the presence of mind to pray out loud; I'd have been too petrified even to think. Every time I contemplate that picture of a ditched airliner gently floating on the water in the emergency procedures card, I have to laugh.
Rockhound
Re Gumbi's posting regarding the actions of the cabin crew: I've read the Ottawa Citizen and the Globe and Mail accounts and nowhere is Rodrigues, the student pilot, quoted as being "annoyed" by the audible prayers of his fellow-passengers. Frankly,I take my hat off to them for having the presence of mind to pray out loud; I'd have been too petrified even to think. Every time I contemplate that picture of a ditched airliner gently floating on the water in the emergency procedures card, I have to laugh.
Rockhound
Senis Semper Fidelis
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Lancashire U K
Posts: 1,288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said Deep Float
Hot ego's all over, means we have to read thru reams of crap to get to the facts.
Richtofan, what do you mean by "English Style" are you referring to the way our politicians always seem to lie on their backs whilst everyone else in Europe Rogers them!
Hot ego's all over, means we have to read thru reams of crap to get to the facts.
Richtofan, what do you mean by "English Style" are you referring to the way our politicians always seem to lie on their backs whilst everyone else in Europe Rogers them!
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Hmmm?
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Camelchaser,
Why doesn't that surprise me....The Gulf news! Typical. Carbys on a jet. I am not the least bit surprised by that comment. That lot haven't got a clue.
I also like the comment "The tyres burst on landing" hmmm maybe they just deflated as per design to prevent explosion. Applying only break on an A330 to stop it with no reverse, the brakes will get a tad warm.
Why doesn't that surprise me....The Gulf news! Typical. Carbys on a jet. I am not the least bit surprised by that comment. That lot haven't got a clue.
I also like the comment "The tyres burst on landing" hmmm maybe they just deflated as per design to prevent explosion. Applying only break on an A330 to stop it with no reverse, the brakes will get a tad warm.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Friggin Sandbox
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just in case someone cares for some background information about the A330-2:
ENG: ALL ENG FLAME OUT Checklist
This warning inhibits the EMER ELEC CONFIG warning.
-RAT MAN ON
This confirms RAT extension
-ENG START SEL.................................IGN
This confirms immediate relight attempt.
-THR LEVERS...................................IDLE
-OPTIMUM RELIGHT SPD.......................300/.82
300/.82 is the optimum relight airspeed for wind milling start. One fuelpump remains supplied down to 260 knots.
Note:
-VHF 1.........................................USE
Only VHF1 is supplied. Notify traffic control of the nature of emergency encountered and state intentions. Transmit a distress message on VHF frequency 121.5 MHz (ATC not supplied).
* IF NO RELIGHT AFTER 30 SEC:
-ENG MASTERS............................OFF 30s/ON
ENG MASTERS must be left OFF for 30 seconds to allow for ventilation of combustion chamber.
*IF UNSUCCESSFUL:
*WHEN BELOW FL 250:
-APU (if operative)..........................START
*WHEN BELOW FL 200:
-WING ANTI ICE.................................OFF
-APU BLEED......................................ON
*IN SEQUENCE
-ENG MASTERS (one at the time)..........OFF 30s/ON
-OPTIMUM SPEED (when APU BLEED available)...230 KT
Green dot speed is not displayed on the captain PFD. Use 230 knots initially before checking in the QRH.
-CREW OXY MASKS (above FL 100)..................ON
-USE RUD WITH CARE
-If forced landing or ditching is expected, use forced landing or ditching procedure in the QRH.
*WHEN BLOW FL 150:
-RAM AIR........................................ON
*EARLY IN APPROACH:
-CAB SECURE..................................ORDER
*FOR SLATS EXTENSION:
-LAND RECOVERY..................................ON
-FOR LDG................................USE FLAP 1
At Flap 1 selection, the emergency generator stops.
-MIN RAT SPEED..............................140 KT
F/CTL servos are supplied be the RAT down to 130 knots.
*FOR LDG GRAVITY EXTENSION:
MAX SPEED...................................200 KT
-L/G GRVTY EXT (if no ditching expected)......DOWN
Disregrad "USE MAN PITCH TRIM" on PFD since the stabilizer control is lost.
*WHEN L/G DONWLOCKED:
-L/G DOWN TARGET SPEED.......................170KT
*AT TOUCH DOWN:
-ENG MASTERS...................................OFF
-APU MASTER SW.................................OFF
-EVACUATION...............................INITIATE
HYD B+Y SYS LO PR
-AFFECTED PUMPS................................OFF
MANEUVER WITH CARE
F/CTL ALTN LAW (PROT LOST)
SPD BRK.................................DO NOT USE
MAX SPEED..................................330/.82
plus STATUS ...
(I'm aware that a relight wasn't an option here, just wanted to offer the whole checklist.)
The ENG SHUT DOWN checklist does NOT ask for an opening of the FUEL X-FEED, as the A32x ECAM does, but requests to MONITOR the FUEL IMBALANCE. Therefore chances are lower to empty all tanks via the X-FEED by mistake. (I don't want to insinuate anything here!)
The FUEL LEAK checklist only allows the X-FEED to be opened, if the leak is confirmed to be within the engine and it is shut down. In all other cases (wing leak, unknown leak) the X-FEED must be remained closed.
Besides : Even with a fuel imbalance of one wing full / one wing empty, there is no special procedure required for approach and landing.
The A330 wingtanks consist of an outer tank and an inner tank. Each inner tank is divided into two parts via a SPLIT valve that normally remains open. The inner tank is used as a single tank and if tank damage is suspected (i.e.
FuelQuantityIndication data is lost or there is a rapid FQI decrease following an engine failure), the SPLIT valve can be manually closed by using the dedicated pushbutton. The ENG FAIL checklist with assumed damage to the eng. asks for that step.
This isolates 1150 kg fuel from the remaining innertank. The two main fuel pumps for each engine are located within this splitted tank section.
A GW of 170T results in a engine out FL of ~FL200. FF is approx 6500kg.
A GW of 210T results in a engine out FL of ~FL180. FF is approx 7400kg.
ENG: ALL ENG FLAME OUT Checklist
This warning inhibits the EMER ELEC CONFIG warning.
-RAT MAN ON
This confirms RAT extension
-ENG START SEL.................................IGN
This confirms immediate relight attempt.
-THR LEVERS...................................IDLE
-OPTIMUM RELIGHT SPD.......................300/.82
300/.82 is the optimum relight airspeed for wind milling start. One fuelpump remains supplied down to 260 knots.
Note:
- At 300/.82 with all engines stopped, it takes about 15 minutes to descend from FL400 to the ground. Distance is about 100 NM.
- In case of speed indication failure (volcanic ash), the pitch attitude for optimum relight speed is -2 degrees (for weights above 150 tonnes add 1/2 degree for each 20 tonnes more).
-VHF 1.........................................USE
Only VHF1 is supplied. Notify traffic control of the nature of emergency encountered and state intentions. Transmit a distress message on VHF frequency 121.5 MHz (ATC not supplied).
* IF NO RELIGHT AFTER 30 SEC:
-ENG MASTERS............................OFF 30s/ON
ENG MASTERS must be left OFF for 30 seconds to allow for ventilation of combustion chamber.
*IF UNSUCCESSFUL:
*WHEN BELOW FL 250:
-APU (if operative)..........................START
*WHEN BELOW FL 200:
-WING ANTI ICE.................................OFF
-APU BLEED......................................ON
*IN SEQUENCE
-ENG MASTERS (one at the time)..........OFF 30s/ON
-OPTIMUM SPEED (when APU BLEED available)...230 KT
Green dot speed is not displayed on the captain PFD. Use 230 knots initially before checking in the QRH.
-CREW OXY MASKS (above FL 100)..................ON
-USE RUD WITH CARE
-If forced landing or ditching is expected, use forced landing or ditching procedure in the QRH.
*WHEN BLOW FL 150:
-RAM AIR........................................ON
*EARLY IN APPROACH:
-CAB SECURE..................................ORDER
*FOR SLATS EXTENSION:
-LAND RECOVERY..................................ON
-FOR LDG................................USE FLAP 1
At Flap 1 selection, the emergency generator stops.
-MIN RAT SPEED..............................140 KT
F/CTL servos are supplied be the RAT down to 130 knots.
*FOR LDG GRAVITY EXTENSION:
MAX SPEED...................................200 KT
-L/G GRVTY EXT (if no ditching expected)......DOWN
Disregrad "USE MAN PITCH TRIM" on PFD since the stabilizer control is lost.
*WHEN L/G DONWLOCKED:
-L/G DOWN TARGET SPEED.......................170KT
*AT TOUCH DOWN:
-ENG MASTERS...................................OFF
-APU MASTER SW.................................OFF
-EVACUATION...............................INITIATE
HYD B+Y SYS LO PR
-AFFECTED PUMPS................................OFF
MANEUVER WITH CARE
F/CTL ALTN LAW (PROT LOST)
SPD BRK.................................DO NOT USE
MAX SPEED..................................330/.82
plus STATUS ...
(I'm aware that a relight wasn't an option here, just wanted to offer the whole checklist.)
The ENG SHUT DOWN checklist does NOT ask for an opening of the FUEL X-FEED, as the A32x ECAM does, but requests to MONITOR the FUEL IMBALANCE. Therefore chances are lower to empty all tanks via the X-FEED by mistake. (I don't want to insinuate anything here!)
The FUEL LEAK checklist only allows the X-FEED to be opened, if the leak is confirmed to be within the engine and it is shut down. In all other cases (wing leak, unknown leak) the X-FEED must be remained closed.
Besides : Even with a fuel imbalance of one wing full / one wing empty, there is no special procedure required for approach and landing.
The A330 wingtanks consist of an outer tank and an inner tank. Each inner tank is divided into two parts via a SPLIT valve that normally remains open. The inner tank is used as a single tank and if tank damage is suspected (i.e.
FuelQuantityIndication data is lost or there is a rapid FQI decrease following an engine failure), the SPLIT valve can be manually closed by using the dedicated pushbutton. The ENG FAIL checklist with assumed damage to the eng. asks for that step.
This isolates 1150 kg fuel from the remaining innertank. The two main fuel pumps for each engine are located within this splitted tank section.
A GW of 170T results in a engine out FL of ~FL200. FF is approx 6500kg.
A GW of 210T results in a engine out FL of ~FL180. FF is approx 7400kg.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Hornby Island, British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CBC Radio News is reporting that the Air Transat plane was properly refuelled at Toronto before takeoff, and that hence the fuel problem must have had in-flight origins.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Cheshire, England
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a member of cabin crew on the 330 200 for a brit charter, I can say that the cabin crew did well! Most airlines operate with 10 or 11 crew, although our minimum is 8. Its a bloody big plane to secure in just 10 minutes! Its a good 40 metre walk to the rear galley from 2 doors, especially when pushing a cart.
(By the way, nice to see that 7 of 8 escape slide rafts fully deployed.)
After reading the many postings, just a few bits I would add:
The Skyservice A330 300 (ex LTU) had Pratt engines, both failed within about 50 hours of each other from compressor blade corrosion. This was during Haj flights from Java. Same first officer on both shutdowns - unlucky!
The newer A330 200's are rated for much greater MTOW/MLW.
Fuel consumption on 1 engine is greater than normal cruise on both engines.
Many operators leave the centre fuel tank dry and opt to carry cargo instead. Otherwise it could fly for 16-18 hours non-stop!
(By the way, nice to see that 7 of 8 escape slide rafts fully deployed.)
After reading the many postings, just a few bits I would add:
The Skyservice A330 300 (ex LTU) had Pratt engines, both failed within about 50 hours of each other from compressor blade corrosion. This was during Haj flights from Java. Same first officer on both shutdowns - unlucky!
The newer A330 200's are rated for much greater MTOW/MLW.
Fuel consumption on 1 engine is greater than normal cruise on both engines.
Many operators leave the centre fuel tank dry and opt to carry cargo instead. Otherwise it could fly for 16-18 hours non-stop!