Avianca A332, Santa Cruz fuel leak, lost 17 tons!
I agree the idea of a compressor stall on an engine in reverse with a heavy fuel leak is frightening. I have been 100 feet in front of an RB211-22C that stalled and it blew me off my feet flat on my back. And yes, there are flames out the front.
But didn't the Concorde report say one of the engines ran up uncontrollably because of ingesting fuel down the inlet? Of course, they were not big fans but straight turbojets.
Anyway, I think they were fortunate not to have any further consequences.
But didn't the Concorde report say one of the engines ran up uncontrollably because of ingesting fuel down the inlet? Of course, they were not big fans but straight turbojets.
Anyway, I think they were fortunate not to have any further consequences.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: nowhere
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One reason to stay on the runway in such a situation is for fire vehicle access. Notice how narrow the taxiway is. If the ground is soft, then the fire trucks may become bogged down and not be able to reach the desired firefighting location in relation to the aircraft.
If an engine did run away because the reverser was pushing leaked fuel into it, would deselecting the reverser stop the cycle? I guess even a short lived runaway wouldn't be a good thing, but the possible compressor stall sounds even scarier.
Unsubstantiated post on Av Herald:
According to maintenance, they had a line rupture between the fuel pumps and the FCU.
According to maintenance, they had a line rupture between the fuel pumps and the FCU.
Wouldn't that stop the engine as well?
out, even at Idle.
The engine fuel pump and even the aircraft boost pumps are sized to be able to provide considerably more fuel than the engine will require. This gives them a margin so if they degrade or some restriction occurs the engine will not be starved.
Since the engine continued to operate and even pull some power in reverse it would appear this was not a total "rupture" of the fuel line but a leak,albeit ba ig one. However it is obvious that there was enough fuel being provided by the pump to sustain engine operation and keep the leak going.
Being retired I am cut off from sources of IPC and other drawings. Would love to see on illustrating what went wrong.
Since the engine continued to operate and even pull some power in reverse it would appear this was not a total "rupture" of the fuel line but a leak,albeit ba ig one. However it is obvious that there was enough fuel being provided by the pump to sustain engine operation and keep the leak going.
Being retired I am cut off from sources of IPC and other drawings. Would love to see on illustrating what went wrong.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Not far from a big Lake
Age: 82
Posts: 1,454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you look at the video, it seems that the size of the fuel cloud reduces considerably almost coincident with the wheel spin up smoke. Might just be the fuel pump slowing down as the engine is throttled back.
The fuel seems to be coming out over a broad area of the cowling, not just from an overboard line.
To land an aircraft with an active large scale fuel leak considerably raises the hazard. A leak of the size of this one must have been visible from the cabin once the ground was visible as a background.
Did they request a visual inspection by the crew in back? Did PNF go back for a look? Did they ask the tower what they were seeing? What did they do to isolate and identify the source of the leak?
The thought of an aircraft full of people standing on top of a rapidly spreading puddle of fuel scares the bejesus out of me and it should scare you too.
I think I'd do everything possible to get a big leak under control before landing.
The fuel seems to be coming out over a broad area of the cowling, not just from an overboard line.
To land an aircraft with an active large scale fuel leak considerably raises the hazard. A leak of the size of this one must have been visible from the cabin once the ground was visible as a background.
Did they request a visual inspection by the crew in back? Did PNF go back for a look? Did they ask the tower what they were seeing? What did they do to isolate and identify the source of the leak?
The thought of an aircraft full of people standing on top of a rapidly spreading puddle of fuel scares the bejesus out of me and it should scare you too.
I think I'd do everything possible to get a big leak under control before landing.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Not far from a big Lake
Age: 82
Posts: 1,454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"to land with a leak raises the hazard...". Ah well, best to just keep flying around until it's all gone then!
Back when I was flying tactical stuff, almost all of it had a single feed tank to the engine/engines and if you had a leak from downstream of the feedtank, you had better get it on the ground before the go juice ran out unless you could safely isolate the leak.
Transport aircraft fuel systems are a bit more redundant with separate feed tanks for each engine. (No doubt exceptions exist). As long as the crossfeed remains closed and you have enough fuel to make it to a suitable airport, do you really need to land ASAP?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[if] you have enough fuel to make it to a suitable airport, do you really need to land ASAP?
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Not far from a big Lake
Age: 82
Posts: 1,454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by poorjohn
Depends on your willingness to gamble on no possibility of in-flight ignition.
A valid concern.
Here is my take on the dilemma.
You are hired to make decisions based on training and experience.
To make good decisions, you need information, not fear.
Questions like where is the leak?
Is fuel accumulating in the aircraft? If so, where?
Can I isolate the leak?
What configuration changes might be particularly hazardous?
Will I encounter balance problems if this continues leaking? And of course, one of the important ones, can I make the airport.
QF32 stands as an example of how these situations (and worse) can be handled.
But I would not breathe a sign of relief as you slow to taxi speed and think, "now it is the crash crew's problem." There is still time to seize disaster from the jaws of victory.
The emergency isn't over until the wheels are chocked and everyone is off the aircraft.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Surrounded by aluminum, and the great outdoors
Posts: 3,780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can work your way through the normative decision-making process..after having completed the intuitive process...which in my Airbus QRH states "LAND ASAP"....
In re BOAC's post concerning the AVHerald remark re, "fuel line rupture", the following may be of some interest.
Report: Air Transat A330 fuel exhaustion
I posted this previously in the thread and I'll post it once more in case some haven't had a chance to read it yet.
Report: Air Canada A333 fuel leak at the engine
From the TSB report:
"Rolls-Royce indicates that pressure in the LP fuel line increases from 100 pounds per square inch (psi) at idle to approximately 190 psi at take-off power while the fuel flow rate increases from 685 kg per hour to 9000 kg per hour. Data from the FDR indicate that a fuel discrepancy began when engine power was increased for take-off. At take-off power, the fuel loss was calculated to be approximately 10 000 kg per hour, yet the engine continued to operate normally."
Whether the Avianca A332 leak would have stopped the engine is debatable. The "contrail" left by the fuel in the AC case looks to be about the same as the Avianca one and in both cases the engine kept running normally.
Report: Air Transat A330 fuel exhaustion
I posted this previously in the thread and I'll post it once more in case some haven't had a chance to read it yet.
Report: Air Canada A333 fuel leak at the engine
From the TSB report:
"Rolls-Royce indicates that pressure in the LP fuel line increases from 100 pounds per square inch (psi) at idle to approximately 190 psi at take-off power while the fuel flow rate increases from 685 kg per hour to 9000 kg per hour. Data from the FDR indicate that a fuel discrepancy began when engine power was increased for take-off. At take-off power, the fuel loss was calculated to be approximately 10 000 kg per hour, yet the engine continued to operate normally."
Whether the Avianca A332 leak would have stopped the engine is debatable. The "contrail" left by the fuel in the AC case looks to be about the same as the Avianca one and in both cases the engine kept running normally.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Surrounded by aluminum, and the great outdoors
Posts: 3,780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well....very simply...if the fuel on one side is leaking for sure if one takes no action...eventually the engine on the leaking side will run out of fuel before the one that is not...not rocket science...the Airbus fuel leak procedure (enhanced after the Transat incident)..is very detailed...best not try and "out think it"
