Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

A330-200 flameout / relight of both engines on approach

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

A330-200 flameout / relight of both engines on approach

Old 14th Jan 2019, 01:47
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Area 51
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Sailvi767 View Post
You can get a A330-200 on the ground in 20 to 25 minutes from cruise. There were numerous airports that were suitable in that time frame. The reality is they flew an extra 30 to 35 minutes. Wise or not we are talking about remaining airborne a lot longer than a few extra minutes.
Then you probably don't want to hear about the "Emirates B773 near Iqaluit on 18 July 2018 (engine shut down in flight)" that flew single engine for TWO HOURS to land at Goose Bay?

Incident: Emirates B773 near Iqaluit on Jul 18th 2018, engine shut down in flight
FlyXLsa is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2019, 11:31
  #22 (permalink)  
A4

Ut Sementem Feeceris
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,318
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
....isn't the most conservative action to remain up there?
That would be amongst the least conservative in my book......

A4
A4 is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2019, 11:35
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: US
Age: 64
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by FlyXLsa View Post
Then you probably don't want to hear about the "Emirates B773 near Iqaluit on 18 July 2018 (engine shut down in flight)" that flew single engine for TWO HOURS to land at Goose Bay?

Incident: Emirates B773 near Iqaluit on Jul 18th 2018, engine shut down in flight
If that was the nearest suitable airport I have no issue with it.
Sailvi767 is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2019, 12:41
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Area 51
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Sailvi767 View Post
If that was the nearest suitable airport I have no issue with it.
I understand they were about 10 minutes past Iqaluit.
A Swiss B773 landed at Iqaluit on Feb 1st 2017.
FlyXLsa is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2019, 17:08
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 930
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
that flew single engine for TWO HOURS to land at Goose Bay?
I wouldn't get too excited about that; there are now, or very soon will be, ETOPS flights which allow up to 7 hours to reach a diversion after losing one engine. (I admit that I'm assuming that Airbus managed this for the A350, I haven't bothered to keep up. And 330 minutes sounds just as bad, to me.)

Not with me on board; but if you have faith in statistics you can enjoy the 420 minutes struggling along on one engine over the chilly ocean. Sorry; for "struggling" read "cruising happily", that was just a lapse by this old dinosaur. What we ODs just cannot grasp is that so long as you maintain your ETOPS aircraft a little bit better, a double-engine failure in a twin is, well, just impossible. Isn't it?

Last edited by old,not bold; 14th Jan 2019 at 17:32.
old,not bold is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2019, 19:09
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: US
Age: 64
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by FlyXLsa View Post
I understand they were about 10 minutes past Iqaluit.
A Swiss B773 landed at Iqaluit on Feb 1st 2017.
If it was suitable they should have landed there. Suitable includes many aspects however with the weather being the most changeable.
Sailvi767 is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2019, 21:49
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Surrounded by aluminum, and the great outdoors
Posts: 3,782
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
the whole point is these folks in the 330, apparently did not for whatever reason, land at the nearest suitable airport, the other flights mentioned above have nothing to do with this, as it it is quite possible their nearest suitable airport/designated ETOPS alternate may have been further away..
ironbutt57 is offline  
Old 15th Jan 2019, 00:06
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: US
Age: 64
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Just to clear one thing up. ETOPS alternates are for flight planning purposes only. Once airborne the nearest suitable airport may or may not be the ETOPS alternate. You are still required to go to the nearest suitable regardless of what your ETOPS alternate was. There is a judgement component however. Weather and other factors could mean flying to a airport further away if conditions dictate.
Sailvi767 is offline  
Old 15th Jan 2019, 03:25
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Paris
Age: 73
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by old,not bold View Post

Not with me on board; but if you have faith in statistics you can enjoy the 420 minutes struggling along on one engine over the chilly ocean. Sorry; for "struggling" read "cruising happily", that was just a lapse by this old dinosaur. What we ODs just cannot grasp is that so long as you maintain your ETOPS aircraft a little bit better, a double-engine failure in a twin is, well, just impossible. Isn't it?
It's not faith in statistics, it's faith in economics - the failure rate has been reduced to the point where it's cheaper to pay off the hull loss and the relatives of the souls rather than improve the hardware. And let's face it, anyone except US citizens have a low compensation cost.

Also the calculation behind twin-engine ETOPS leverages the fact that once an occasional 2-engine airframe loss is computed into the fleet ownership costs, what increases is insurance overhead, but eg. a 3 engine would probably have higher maintenance overhead due to the greater number of individual engine units to maintain.

But that way when you're in seat 0A and lose a donk over the blue, you get to show the right stuff and smile.

As an SLF and an engineer, I always liked 747s

Edmund

Last edited by edmundronald; 15th Jan 2019 at 03:36.
edmundronald is offline  
Old 15th Jan 2019, 04:15
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Age: 55
Posts: 780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
So how many planes have crashed due to a lack of engines that worked?

And I am just talking "big" aircraft here, if you look from the B707&DC8 era all the way to A330, A321LR, B737max, B777 aso, how many hull losses would have been prevented, if only they had a few more engines?
hans brinker is offline  
Old 15th Jan 2019, 08:02
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Harbour Master Place
Posts: 662
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Clip from the movie Fight Club.



"On a long enough time line, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.

"I was a recall coordinator. My job was to apply the formula. ... A new car built by my company leaves somewhere travelling at mph. The rear differential locks up. ... The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? ... Take the number of vehicles in the field, A. Multiply it by the probable rate of failure, B. Multiply the result by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A x B x C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one."
CurtainTwitcher is offline  
Old 15th Jan 2019, 15:23
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Area 51
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by hans brinker View Post
So how many planes have crashed due to a lack of engines that worked?
And I am just talking "big" aircraft here, if you look from the B707&DC8 era all the way to A330, A321LR, B737max, B777 aso, how many hull losses would have been prevented, if only they had a few more engines?
For solely mechanical issues and excluding events like US1549 I think none... yet. With the issues RR has had with their Trent 1000 on the 787 and PW issues with their GTF on the 320neo the theoretically "statistically insignificant" odds must have increased a bit?
FlyXLsa is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2019, 03:20
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Australia
Age: 59
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by hans brinker View Post
...how many hull losses would have been prevented, if only they had a few more engines?
You would probably have to count US1549, even though the cause was environmental there would have been a remote chance that an additional engine might have retained sufficient thrust to get the aircraft to a suitable (there's that word again) field. Against that, how many hull losses have resulted from a single catastrophic failure of or around an engine? UA232, LY1862,QF32 (almost) for a start. Having more engines that could save you also means having more engines that could kill you.
InfrequentFlier511 is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2019, 13:47
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Surrounded by aluminum, and the great outdoors
Posts: 3,782
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
my bigger concern over the middle of the water somewhere at night, would be a blazing cargo fire...
ironbutt57 is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2019, 15:29
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: US
Age: 64
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by ironbutt57 View Post
my bigger concern over the middle of the water somewhere at night, would be a blazing cargo fire...
Ditching would be your only option however ditching over the North Atlantic is a death sentence even if you get out of the aircraft unless there is a ship nearby.
Sailvi767 is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2019, 17:03
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
You would probably have to count US1549, even though the cause was environmental there would have been a remote chance that an additional engine might have retained sufficient thrust to get the aircraft to a suitable (there's that word again) field. Against that, how many hull losses have resulted from a single catastrophic failure of or around an engine? UA232, LY1862,QF32 (almost) for a start. Having more engines that could save you

No idea why threads degenerate into number of engines after an event

Nobody adds engines purely for redundancy. They are added for performance reasons.

Given that the number of engines is performance based, that the more engines the more failure combinations per flight and once you start adding the loss of more than a single engine you're going to be performance limited far more often te US1549 event.and in the news more often.

If you just feel more comfortable with more engines than maybe they ought to add a syllabus to training to certify a pilots ability to handle multiple engine outs in takeoff bird ingestions etc.
lomapaseo is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2019, 19:35
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 861
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by InfrequentFlier511 View Post
You would probably have to count US1549, even though the cause was environmental there would have been a remote chance that an additional engine might have retained sufficient thrust to get the aircraft to a suitable (there's that word again) field.
Also BA38, although it was fuel icing it was very transient and difficult to reproduce, on a four-holer (or three) the difference in temperature exposure of tanks and pipes etc. between inboard and outboard might have been enough that at least two of the engines would have spooled up when they asked for power, and that is probably all they needed.
infrequentflyer789 is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2019, 02:56
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 67
Posts: 3,796
Received 6 Likes on 5 Posts
If you loose two engines during takeoff, on anything short of a B-52 you're probably going to have a really bad day - the extra engine(s) just mean you have slightly more control over where you're going to crash.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_A...entry_accident
22 September 1995 crash of a United States Air Force Boeing E-3 Sentry airborne early warning aircraft with the loss of all 24 people on board.[1] The aircraft, serial number 77-0354 with callsign Yukla 27, hit birds on departure from Elmendorf Air Force Base in Alaska, United States. With the loss of thrust from both of the left engines the aircraft crashed into a wooded area less than a mile from the end of the runway.
If having more than two engines made the aircraft inherently safer, you'd expect to see that in the fatal hull loss statistics. Yet the 747-400 rate is more than twice what it is for the 757, 767, 777, or A330 (and you don't even want to ask about the MD-11).
tdracer is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2019, 07:57
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Area 51
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by tdracer View Post
If you loose two engines during takeoff, on anything short of a B-52 you're probably going to have a really bad day - the extra engine(s) just mean you have slightly more control over where you're going to crash.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_A...entry_accident


If having more than two engines made the aircraft inherently safer, you'd expect to see that in the fatal hull loss statistics. Yet the 747-400 rate is more than twice what it is for the 757, 767, 777, or A330 (and you don't even want to ask about the MD-11).
I'll take the Lockheed L-1011 when it comes to jets with more that two engines.
I always liked that plane for a variety of reasons and safety wasn't bad either.
FlyXLsa is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2019, 19:09
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Age: 55
Posts: 780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by tdracer View Post
If you loose two engines during takeoff, on anything short of a B-52 you're probably going to have a really bad day - the extra engine(s) just mean you have slightly more control over where you're going to crash.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_A...entry_accident


If having more than two engines made the aircraft inherently safer, you'd expect to see that in the fatal hull loss statistics. Yet the 747-400 rate is more than twice what it is for the 757, 767, 777, or A330 (and you don't even want to ask about the MD-11).
Upvote. .
hans brinker is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.