Emergency landing Cathay A330-300
mrdeux,
WSSS, etc dosen't have to be on the track to HK. Nearest suitable airport just might require a heading change
WSSS, etc dosen't have to be on the track to HK. Nearest suitable airport just might require a heading change
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Third sand dune on the left
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bengerman,
That is incorrect, on an Airbus, if the ECAM indicates an ENG FIRE, then the LAND ASAP is in red. On an ENG FAIL, it indicates LAND ASAP in amber.
LAND ASAP Red as per FCOM 3, the pilot should land at the nearest suitable airport. LAND ASAP Amber, the crew should consider the seriousness of the situation, and select a suitable airport.
That is incorrect, on an Airbus, if the ECAM indicates an ENG FIRE, then the LAND ASAP is in red. On an ENG FAIL, it indicates LAND ASAP in amber.
LAND ASAP Red as per FCOM 3, the pilot should land at the nearest suitable airport. LAND ASAP Amber, the crew should consider the seriousness of the situation, and select a suitable airport.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: N.S.W, Australia
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems stilton was right,
According to abc news in australia "Cathay Pacific said in a statement that the plane's left engine had shut down as the aircraft made its landing approach at Hong Kong's international airport on Tuesday with 309 passengers on a flight from Surabaya in Indonesia.
The right engine also began to "cut out inexplicably, leaving the [pilots] to cope with dips and surges in power and the prospect of the plane plunging into the sea short of [the airport]," the South China Morning Post reported."
According to abc news in australia "Cathay Pacific said in a statement that the plane's left engine had shut down as the aircraft made its landing approach at Hong Kong's international airport on Tuesday with 309 passengers on a flight from Surabaya in Indonesia.
The right engine also began to "cut out inexplicably, leaving the [pilots] to cope with dips and surges in power and the prospect of the plane plunging into the sea short of [the airport]," the South China Morning Post reported."
There are some extremely lazy posters on this tread who obviously can’t be bothered reading the thread on Fragrant Harbour or going to the Cathay Pacific web site. If you had you would soon realise that the failures didn’t materialise until top of descent into Hong Kong CLK. I can assure you though that no Cathay Pacific pilot would ever fly past a suitable airport in a twin if we had an engine shut down.
A330 Evac
CX Press Release Details
A330 Evac
CX Press Release Details
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: SLF, living somewhere East in the West
Posts: 235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
THAT is remarkable
After the usual disclaimer that I am only a SLF and reading the press release I may add that for me the crew seems to have handled it very well. What I find even more impressive though is this: "The company was now offering to refund all passengers tickets and offer them a free regional flight."
Can you imagine that here in the land of the free? From United or UsAir...? Well, I guess you get what you pay for.
Can you imagine that here in the land of the free? From United or UsAir...? Well, I guess you get what you pay for.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by CX Press Release Details
He said it had been determined that the number 2 (RH) engine was at idle power throughout the approach and landing at HKIA, and the Number 1(LH) engine was operating at 70 per cent of its maximum power, and frozen at that level.
The arguments and opinions that I have been reading in this thread seem to be presumptious of the facts.
There is a difference between "an engine problem", an engine failure and an engine that needs to be shutdown. Part of this are engine out of limits ECAM warnings requiring a pilot action and/or discretionary action by the pilot to simply retard the throttle.
To divert or not divert has to consider what are the facts as the pilot sees them and not what the press says or we imagine.
To me it's a complete waste of time for us to second guess decisions when we don't have access to the DFDR.
Of course I'm still interested in whether this was a common fault, independant faults, engine performance faults or aircrat or engine electronic control functions.
There is a difference between "an engine problem", an engine failure and an engine that needs to be shutdown. Part of this are engine out of limits ECAM warnings requiring a pilot action and/or discretionary action by the pilot to simply retard the throttle.
To divert or not divert has to consider what are the facts as the pilot sees them and not what the press says or we imagine.
To me it's a complete waste of time for us to second guess decisions when we don't have access to the DFDR.
Of course I'm still interested in whether this was a common fault, independant faults, engine performance faults or aircrat or engine electronic control functions.
Caution for readers: The following is a discussion point and is neither a theory nor a speculation.
I am sure that we will hear more after the results of the news conference which was supposed to be held Wednesday afternoon in Hong Kong, are made available.
CONF iture;
Well, computers don't have 'whims' but "what's it doing now?" is a familiar phrase... ;-)
I've been looking through some manuals. For the A320, do you recall an ENG THR LEVER FAULT QRH procedure? The same procedure is in the A330 QRH. From what has been released thus far, it seems that one engine was shut down and the other was stuck at an setting between IDLE and CLB. While there seems little in common between the A330 event and this fault it is the closest fault I can find on a quick inspection. There is another fault, ENG 1(2) EPR MODE FAULT, which requires the use of manual thrust but does not require an engine shutdown.
I think the software has long since been modified but one time this fault required an autoland with autothrust engaged so that the autoflight system could control the engine thrust. The QRH alternative was to shut the engine down. There are various thrust levels at which the engine is 'stuck' depending upon ground or flight, slats extended or retracted, thrust lever position, (TOGA, FLEX/MCT, CLB or somewhere between CLB and IDLE).
In the current QRH procedure, the autothrust is left engaged and it is stated that FADEC will control the engine thrust but in this case it seems that this was not possible and that apparently the only option was to shut the remaining engine down once the field was assured.
PJ2
I am sure that we will hear more after the results of the news conference which was supposed to be held Wednesday afternoon in Hong Kong, are made available.
CONF iture;
Does it mean ENG 1 could not be shut down trough ENG MASTER ... and maybe relighted as soon after ... could it be possibly just another temporary computer whim ?
I've been looking through some manuals. For the A320, do you recall an ENG THR LEVER FAULT QRH procedure? The same procedure is in the A330 QRH. From what has been released thus far, it seems that one engine was shut down and the other was stuck at an setting between IDLE and CLB. While there seems little in common between the A330 event and this fault it is the closest fault I can find on a quick inspection. There is another fault, ENG 1(2) EPR MODE FAULT, which requires the use of manual thrust but does not require an engine shutdown.
I think the software has long since been modified but one time this fault required an autoland with autothrust engaged so that the autoflight system could control the engine thrust. The QRH alternative was to shut the engine down. There are various thrust levels at which the engine is 'stuck' depending upon ground or flight, slats extended or retracted, thrust lever position, (TOGA, FLEX/MCT, CLB or somewhere between CLB and IDLE).
In the current QRH procedure, the autothrust is left engaged and it is stated that FADEC will control the engine thrust but in this case it seems that this was not possible and that apparently the only option was to shut the remaining engine down once the field was assured.
PJ2
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by PJ2
From what has been released thus far, it seems that one engine was shut down and the other was stuck at an setting between IDLE and CLB.
It seems that the ENG THR LEVER FAULT is a ECAM procedure but not a QRH one.
Is it also possible that an engine frozen at a level of power won't trigger any kind of ECAM message ... the crew would have to improvise !?
CONF iture;
Thanks - I was reading the abnormal from the FCOM and in my mind substituted/typed "QRH" - its in the paper version of the ECAM drills and does show up on the ECAM.
Well I think that depends upon the failure. As you know from your A320 FCOM/Vol.1/Abnormals/Power Plant there are many ENG abnormals; a few of them, such as the example offered, will freeze or limit thrust and yes, that would be, through the FWC, announced on the lower ECAM, and,
This isn't an irrational airplane no more than we can say that the B777/B767/A310/MD11 are. Designers and engineers of software and hardware are good at what they do. The airplane isn't perfect but no airplane is, and if something is broken or the airplane is abused beyond its certification limits it will behave just as any engineered system would, within the laws of physics. So....engine thrust isn't frozen/limited without cause; just as the airplane is handed over to humans when it no longer has sufficient information upon which to guide/limit its flight, it is almost always because FADEC does not have sufficient information to govern/provide engine thrust. THR LK is another message which comes on in Alphaprot and requires active flight crew intervention.
All that said, it is an airplane and we are pilots. Where demanded by rare circumstances such as unanticipated/unwritten failures, flight crews can and clearly do, improvise; I suspect the guys who landed the JetBlue A320 with the cocked nosewheel 'improvised' because there is no ECAM for "Cocked Nosewheel". The QRH drill for dual engine failure is long but I suspect Sully and his F/O had to improvise in the three-plus minutes they had to ditch. In response to warnings, (which we later found out were false), with maintenance concurrence I have had to improvise in an A330 in order to prevent a far more serious situation from unfolding. So it can occur and improvisation, with knowledge/experience, may be required; this is aviation, after all, not a UAV...yet. In our case it was absolutely not due to the design of the warnings or engines or the airplane.
With regard to the ENG THR LEVER FAULT and the ENG THR LEVER DISAGREE the drill was either autoland the airplane or shut the engine down at 500ftRA because the moment the autopilot was disconnected the engine thrust would be commanded as if the thrust lever were in the CLB position, (depending of course, when the failure occurred). That is now changed and one does not need to autoland the airplane but must use the autothrust. It used to be a simulator favourite...
regards,
PJ2
It seems that the ENG THR LEVER FAULT is a ECAM procedure but not a QRH one.
Is it also possible that an engine frozen at a level of power won't trigger any kind of ECAM message
... the crew would have to improvise !?
All that said, it is an airplane and we are pilots. Where demanded by rare circumstances such as unanticipated/unwritten failures, flight crews can and clearly do, improvise; I suspect the guys who landed the JetBlue A320 with the cocked nosewheel 'improvised' because there is no ECAM for "Cocked Nosewheel". The QRH drill for dual engine failure is long but I suspect Sully and his F/O had to improvise in the three-plus minutes they had to ditch. In response to warnings, (which we later found out were false), with maintenance concurrence I have had to improvise in an A330 in order to prevent a far more serious situation from unfolding. So it can occur and improvisation, with knowledge/experience, may be required; this is aviation, after all, not a UAV...yet. In our case it was absolutely not due to the design of the warnings or engines or the airplane.
With regard to the ENG THR LEVER FAULT and the ENG THR LEVER DISAGREE the drill was either autoland the airplane or shut the engine down at 500ftRA because the moment the autopilot was disconnected the engine thrust would be commanded as if the thrust lever were in the CLB position, (depending of course, when the failure occurred). That is now changed and one does not need to autoland the airplane but must use the autothrust. It used to be a simulator favourite...
regards,
PJ2
Last edited by PJ2; 14th Apr 2010 at 22:44.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This higher thrust setting on the left-hand engine resulted in a landing at 230kt, with an incorrect flap configuration
, I'm happy I was not at that aircraft..