A300-600 in Sharm
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A300-600 in Sharm
A flight from Britain carrying 350 passengers on board made an emergency landing at Egypt’s Sharm el-Sheikh airport. According to reports, the flight experienced an engine problem forcing the pilot to make an emergency landing. No one was hurt and the passengers exited the flight in normally.
The flight was an Airbus A380 carrying 350 passengers. The head of the Egyptian airports company told journalists that the flight had to land after an issue with one of the plane’s engines
The flight was an Airbus A380 carrying 350 passengers. The head of the Egyptian airports company told journalists that the flight had to land after an issue with one of the plane’s engines
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: South East England
Posts: 304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Incident: Monarch A306 near Sharm el Sheikh on Aug 8th 2013, engine shut down in flight
By Simon Hradecky, created Thursday, Aug 8th 2013 22:09Z, last updated Thursday, Aug 8th 2013 22:24Z
A Monarch Airlines Airbus A300-600, registration G-MAJS performing flight ZB-248 from London Gatwick,EN (UK) to Sharm el Sheikh (Egypt) with 262 people on board, was descending towards Sharm el Sheikh, estimated to land about 15 minutes later, when the crew declared emergency reporting the left hand engine (CF6) had failed due to fuel no longer reaching the engine and was shut down. The aircraft landed safely in Sharm el Sheikh.
The return flight was cancelled.
Airport Officials reported a Monarch Airbus A380 with 350 passengers reported engine trouble (editorial note: Monarch does not (yet) operate Airbus A380-800s).
The airline reported a warning indication in the cockpit illuminated.
By Simon Hradecky, created Thursday, Aug 8th 2013 22:09Z, last updated Thursday, Aug 8th 2013 22:24Z
A Monarch Airlines Airbus A300-600, registration G-MAJS performing flight ZB-248 from London Gatwick,EN (UK) to Sharm el Sheikh (Egypt) with 262 people on board, was descending towards Sharm el Sheikh, estimated to land about 15 minutes later, when the crew declared emergency reporting the left hand engine (CF6) had failed due to fuel no longer reaching the engine and was shut down. The aircraft landed safely in Sharm el Sheikh.
The return flight was cancelled.
Airport Officials reported a Monarch Airbus A380 with 350 passengers reported engine trouble (editorial note: Monarch does not (yet) operate Airbus A380-800s).
The airline reported a warning indication in the cockpit illuminated.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: The blasted heath
Posts: 259
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last edited by gcal; 9th Aug 2013 at 13:08.
While not wishing to seem pedantic, can't someone educate the journos of the difference between a precautionary landing and an emergency landing?
It seems to me that the crew executed a precautionary landing ... which is usually intended to prevent a situation from becoming an emergency.
It seems to me that the crew executed a precautionary landing ... which is usually intended to prevent a situation from becoming an emergency.
A fair point, A4, but even with only one engine, it flies, and is controllable.
Then again, I expect you would declare an emergency if the donk quit, in order to get appropriate handling from ATC and preferential landing position, so maybe I'm being unfair to the journos on this one.
To my way of thinking, if you have one engine, and it quits, you have an emergency. If you have multiple engines, and one quits, you have a malfunction, but you are still flying. (Yes, it's a major malfunction ...)
Then again, I expect you would declare an emergency if the donk quit, in order to get appropriate handling from ATC and preferential landing position, so maybe I'm being unfair to the journos on this one.
To my way of thinking, if you have one engine, and it quits, you have an emergency. If you have multiple engines, and one quits, you have a malfunction, but you are still flying. (Yes, it's a major malfunction ...)
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 9th Aug 2013 at 13:50.
While not wishing to seem pedantic, can't someone educate the journos of the difference between a precautionary landing and an emergency landing?
Whilst not wishing to be pedantic can't someone educate the journos of the difference between a 2 engined and a 4 engined a/c. Since when have Monarch had 380's?
Rotate on this!
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Aberdeen
Age: 64
Posts: 403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst not wishing to be pedantic can't someone educate the journos of the difference between a 2 engined and a 4 engined a/c. Since when have Monarch had 380's?
All I see here is OP's words not a link to an article.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
While not wishing to seem pedantic, can't someone educate the journos of the difference between a precautionary landing and an emergency landing?
And, the recent CYA thinking for U.S. carriers seems to be that you should declare an emergency for lesser problems to avoid being violated for not going into holding, having a Kumbya session with the dispatcher, maintenance, subject matter experts, the manufacturer and maybe the feds.
If you feel it is safer to take immediate action and get the aircraft on the ground on a long dry runway that you can see below you without an amended dispatch release, a check of OPSPECS, runway landing data etc., you'd better declare an emergency to make sure every decision you made is covered by FAR 91.3
Back in the day it used to be 'you are the captain, you ran the checklist correctly and took care of the problem, you got the plane down safely. Fill out a report when you get a moment, we'll forward it to the feds. It was your call and we stand behind your decisions, you were there, we were not, good job!'
Now it's 'you did not properly notify dispatch and scheduling before getting ATC approval to land with the flap problem, you asked for the equipment standing by but did not use the word emergency, the other pilot filed an ASAP report within the time window but yours was an hour late and not accepted, you pulled the CVR circuit breaker but did not annotate it separately in the maintenance log from your flap writeup. Since you didn't formally declare an emergency and your ASAP report wasn't accepted, the POI is looking at it and you'll probably get a letter from the feds on this one...'
Last edited by Airbubba; 9th Aug 2013 at 16:45.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Potomac Heights
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Isn't one of the reasons you would declare an emergency in a twin with one out because (if you are not a B757, anyway), you can't really do a good go-around if the previous flight is tardy in vacating the runway.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OEI performance
Why doesn't someone merely open the A300-600 AFM and verify that there's a certified chapter containing performance data with one donk out of service? This issue is a no-brainer. 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Isn't one of the reasons you would declare an emergency in a twin with one out because (if you are not a B757, anyway), you can't really do a good go-around if the previous flight is tardy in vacating the runway.
Why doesn't someone merely open the A300-600 AFM and verify that there's a certified chapter containing performance data with one donk out of service? This issue is a no-brainer.
The '75 spools the engine(s) up on the go around but then throttles back to maintain a manageable 2000 fpm climb if you are on autopilot or following the flight directors. If you pitch over to try to accelerate instead of climb before selecting another pitch mode, the autothrottle will keep adding power since it thinks you need more to get 2000 fpm.
Obviously, we are talking glass cockpit jet airliner twins here, piston twins grandfathered under some ancient rule are a different ballgame and may only take you to scene of the crash in some scenarios with an engine out from what I've read here.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
..the left hand engine (CF6) had failed due to fuel no longer reaching the engine..
Last edited by cwatters; 10th Aug 2013 at 06:57.
monarch's 4 a300-600's have given sterling service since 1990...
with most of the time with 361 seats in a 3-3-3 config
yes its very tight, they used to send them to the Maldives via BAH....
but a real workhouse,
just like KT Tristars with 400 seats which did go-sick
quite often LOL causes us lots of headaches especially went 2 went tech together on the every Friday night as always in July and august...
they are all (the a300's) due to be retired in next year or so...
there has been very few incidents with in service with monarch over the past 23 years no serious events at all...this one though if the report is correct of fuel starvation is quite serious imho and the inspections will of interest to all concerned.
the a/c was on descent to SSH,
350 pax on the return flight waiting...hotels a plenty though in SSH
with most of the time with 361 seats in a 3-3-3 config
yes its very tight, they used to send them to the Maldives via BAH....
but a real workhouse,
just like KT Tristars with 400 seats which did go-sick
quite often LOL causes us lots of headaches especially went 2 went tech together on the every Friday night as always in July and august...
they are all (the a300's) due to be retired in next year or so...
there has been very few incidents with in service with monarch over the past 23 years no serious events at all...this one though if the report is correct of fuel starvation is quite serious imho and the inspections will of interest to all concerned.
the a/c was on descent to SSH,
350 pax on the return flight waiting...hotels a plenty though in SSH