Avianca A332, Santa Cruz fuel leak, lost 17 tons!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,742
Received 2,727 Likes
on
1,160 Posts
Avianca A332, Santa Cruz fuel leak, lost 17 tons!
An Avianca Airbus A330-200, registration N975AV performing flight AV-88 from Buenos Aires Ezeiza,BA (Argentina) to Bogota (Colombia) with 252 passengers and 10 crew, was enroute at FL380 near Santa Cruz (Bolivia) when the crew detected a fuel leak and decided to divert to Santa Cruz's Viru Viru Airport for a safe landing.
The airline confirmed the crew detected a fuel leak prompting the diversion, about 17 tons of the 42 tons of fuel on board were lost. An Airbus A320-200 was dispatched to Santa Cruz, whcih took about 150 passengers to Bogota in the night of Sep 14th, the remaining passengers were taken to hotels and were rebooked onto other flights the following day.
The airline confirmed the crew detected a fuel leak prompting the diversion, about 17 tons of the 42 tons of fuel on board were lost. An Airbus A320-200 was dispatched to Santa Cruz, whcih took about 150 passengers to Bogota in the night of Sep 14th, the remaining passengers were taken to hotels and were rebooked onto other flights the following day.
Incident: Avianca A332 near Santa Cruz on Sep 14th 2013, fuel leak
Last edited by NutLoose; 19th Sep 2013 at 09:07.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some fuel leak! Its gushing out. Surprised they taxied off the runway with fuel still visible pouring out near the No2 engine and near hot brakes. We've seen what a fuel leak can do in a very short time with the China 737. I don't speak Spanish but would hope that the crew were informed by the tower that fuel was pouring out.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Bedfordshire
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I definitely agree with Mungo Man, allowing the aircraft to taxi with the fuel flowing out, which is very clear from the camera that is filming, poses a huge fire risk....although I couldn't make out whether thrust reverses were used or not, and not knowing that much about which engine option Avianca use, but obviously all the core jet e flux is sent out the back when using thrust revers, which again is perfect for causing catastrophic fires (Concorde), so I'm curious why they didn't stop as quickly as poss and why fire trucks weren't quicker on the scene covering the breaks with foam and what ever else they use.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,742
Received 2,727 Likes
on
1,160 Posts
From the comments on the link
from the audio is clearly noticeable that the crew didn't know, or could not identify until that moment (leaving the runway), the point were they had been loosing the fuel from.
When the GND controller says:
- you have a considerable leak from the right hand engine, please proceed to shut that engine down and confirm us if you can taxi with only one engine or we can tow you to the platform.- (more or less)
the crew asks for confirmation:
- from the right hand engine?
the controllers confirms that, the crew states that they have shut down the right hand engine and that for the moment they will maintain that position. Over there the recording ends.
Is going to be interesting to see what caused that big fuel leak. Fortunately the exhaust gases from that engine didn't ignite the fuel. Maybe the engineers planned for a similar scenario on the designing phase.
When the GND controller says:
- you have a considerable leak from the right hand engine, please proceed to shut that engine down and confirm us if you can taxi with only one engine or we can tow you to the platform.- (more or less)
the crew asks for confirmation:
- from the right hand engine?
the controllers confirms that, the crew states that they have shut down the right hand engine and that for the moment they will maintain that position. Over there the recording ends.
Is going to be interesting to see what caused that big fuel leak. Fortunately the exhaust gases from that engine didn't ignite the fuel. Maybe the engineers planned for a similar scenario on the designing phase.
Three words for this crew-------Fuel leak checklist
So, they knew they had a big leak because they immediately diverted to the nearest suitable airfield, good so far However they obviously didn't read the QRH or FCOM at all????????
Very bloody lucky they didn't burn...
So, they knew they had a big leak because they immediately diverted to the nearest suitable airfield, good so far However they obviously didn't read the QRH or FCOM at all????????
Very bloody lucky they didn't burn...
Last edited by nitpicker330; 19th Sep 2013 at 13:26.
obviously all the core jet e flux is sent out the back when using thrust revers, which again is perfect for causing catastrophic fires (Concorde)
Hot-stream reversers, which featured on early RB211s, JT9Ds, etc, were one of those things that everybody thought was a good idea at the time, but then realised weren't actually doing very much to slow the aircraft down and were therefore removed.
Incidentally I'd be fascinated to know what you think thrust reversers had to do with the Concorde accident.
nitpicker330;
Not necessarily. Nothing is "obvious" at this stage of the event except that there is a fuel leak from the right engine. While the QRH first addresses a leak from the engine/pylon and requires an engine shutdown, (Engine Master OFF), we don't know if they did the QRH or not and we don't know why the leak occured* and won't until the engine is examined.
*Fuel Leak Event - A333
Three words for this crew-------Fuel leak checklist
So, they knew they had a big leak because they immediately diverted to the nearest suitable airfield, good so far However they obviously didn't read the QRH or FCOM at all????????
So, they knew they had a big leak because they immediately diverted to the nearest suitable airfield, good so far However they obviously didn't read the QRH or FCOM at all????????
*Fuel Leak Event - A333
Last edited by PJ2; 19th Sep 2013 at 15:36.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave,
"Incidentally I'd be fascinated to know what you think thrust reversers had to do with the Concorde accident".
I shouldn't bother ...... he's obviously been reading urban legends.
Not to mention the time and effort it took to find the ignition source of the Concorde fuel leak.... the electrical arc in the wheel well was after all only the "most probablde cause".
"Incidentally I'd be fascinated to know what you think thrust reversers had to do with the Concorde accident".
I shouldn't bother ...... he's obviously been reading urban legends.
Not to mention the time and effort it took to find the ignition source of the Concorde fuel leak.... the electrical arc in the wheel well was after all only the "most probablde cause".
Folks,
With a fuel leak like this, it is reminiscent of the Canadian aircraft that finally did a dead stick landing at a small island (don't remember which one) in the middle of the Atlantic.
With a fuel leak like this, it is reminiscent of the Canadian aircraft that finally did a dead stick landing at a small island (don't remember which one) in the middle of the Atlantic.
With a fuel leak like this, it is reminiscent of the Canadian aircraft that finally did a dead stick landing at a small island (don't remember which one) in the middle of the Atlantic.
That, coincidentally (or not), was another Trent-powered A330-200.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Lancs, UK
Age: 61
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To taxi or to stop...
Just wondering what the general opinion would be with a fuel leak of this magnitude - in these particular circumstances, i.e. what looked like 'limited' fire truck(s) in attendance?
Would you
a) continue to taxi hoping the fuel doesn't ignite, and to get closer to other(?) emergency services which are not shown on the video?
Or
b) stop as soon as, and to allow the fuel to pool around and under the a/c with hot brakes - potentially trapping all inside if it went up?
Not seeing the conclusion of how it is actually dealt with does make it a little more difficult.
Would you
a) continue to taxi hoping the fuel doesn't ignite, and to get closer to other(?) emergency services which are not shown on the video?
Or
b) stop as soon as, and to allow the fuel to pool around and under the a/c with hot brakes - potentially trapping all inside if it went up?
Not seeing the conclusion of how it is actually dealt with does make it a little more difficult.
Last edited by E_S_P; 19th Sep 2013 at 16:19.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Dubai and Sunderland
Posts: 818
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a Tower controller in UK about 20 years ago I had a B752 depart with a massive fuel leak, after about a dozen attempts to get the crew to realise they had a problem, "No indication of a problem in the cockpit" my self and the radar controller kept getting told!!
After they realised they had a problem they returned and had to use reverse on landing due to high weight, the whole of the aircraft was engulfed in fuel vapour!! I remember a helicopter pilot sitting rotors just accidentally broadcast
It was a common 'ish' fault with fuel line on RB211-535 at the time!
After they realised they had a problem they returned and had to use reverse on landing due to high weight, the whole of the aircraft was engulfed in fuel vapour!! I remember a helicopter pilot sitting rotors just accidentally broadcast
It was a common 'ish' fault with fuel line on RB211-535 at the time!
historically fuel fed fires on the ground with a running engine ignite after the aircraft is stopped.
The only other ones I can think of was where the engine itself had opened up its innards to allow a fuel leak inside.
The only other ones I can think of was where the engine itself had opened up its innards to allow a fuel leak inside.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@DaveReidUK
To the best of my recollection every RB211 built had the thrust reverser in the hi-bypass duct and never used the hot jet thrust. It would make no sense since virtually all the thrust came from the large fan.
It certainly was there when I was working on the reverse thrust interlock system and that was prior to first test flight.
Hot-stream reversers, which featured on early RB211s, JT9Ds, etc, were one of those things that everybody thought was a good idea at the time, but then realised weren't actually doing very much to slow the aircraft down and were therefore removed.
It certainly was there when I was working on the reverse thrust interlock system and that was prior to first test flight.