A330-200 flameout / relight of both engines on approach
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Haifa
Age: 69
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A330-200 flameout / relight of both engines on approach
https://thepointsguy.com/news/a330-s...nes-in-flight/
The A330-200, built in 2000 and flying with the Belgian registration 00-SFU, was bound for Brussels from Kinshasa on December 11 when it experienced a failure of the left Pratt and Whitney PW4000 while cruising at 40,000 ft. The pilots immediately declared an emergency and planned to divert to Djerba, in Tunisia, as a precaution. The pilots, while working the problem, were able to get the left engine to reignite, and chose instead to proceed to Brussels.
The flight proceeded without incident until its approach into Brussels. The Belgian aviation saferty agency BEA is reporting that on approach the right-hand PW4000 failed and reignited multiple times. The pilots landed the plane safely at Brussels and at the time of touchdown both engines were powered.
Though there was no point in the flight in which the plane didn’t have one of its two engines powered, failure of both engines during a single flight is very rare. The 18-year old aircraft is still on the ground in Brussels while the investigation into the incident proceeds.
----------
What could be the common element here? Fuel system?
The A330-200, built in 2000 and flying with the Belgian registration 00-SFU, was bound for Brussels from Kinshasa on December 11 when it experienced a failure of the left Pratt and Whitney PW4000 while cruising at 40,000 ft. The pilots immediately declared an emergency and planned to divert to Djerba, in Tunisia, as a precaution. The pilots, while working the problem, were able to get the left engine to reignite, and chose instead to proceed to Brussels.
The flight proceeded without incident until its approach into Brussels. The Belgian aviation saferty agency BEA is reporting that on approach the right-hand PW4000 failed and reignited multiple times. The pilots landed the plane safely at Brussels and at the time of touchdown both engines were powered.
Though there was no point in the flight in which the plane didn’t have one of its two engines powered, failure of both engines during a single flight is very rare. The 18-year old aircraft is still on the ground in Brussels while the investigation into the incident proceeds.
----------
What could be the common element here? Fuel system?
Could possibly be fuel contamination issue similar to this:
https://www.cad.gov.hk/reports/2%20F...0compliant.pdf
https://www.cad.gov.hk/reports/2%20F...0compliant.pdf
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Somewhere out there...
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hopefully they can isolate the cause. Engine problems at throttle back can point to super-absorbent polymer (SAP) contamination. The reduced fuel flow causes the fuel temperature in the HMU to increase, dessicating the globules of SAP creating small spheres in the 10-15 micron range that can jam the main metering valves. That was what happened with CX780. Most fuel hydrant trucks have SAP laden filter monitor elements, so the lesson with CX780 will be repeated until the industry learns.
...that can jam the main metering valves.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Potomac Heights
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What should have been the appropriate procedure here? While I know this was not an ETOPS flight, if an engine shuts down during flight -- even if it relights, isn't it appropriate to land at the nearest suitable airport -- especially if the reason for the shutdown is not absolutely known with certainty by the crew. It will be interesting to learn what their thinking was in deciding to continue on to BRU.
What should have been the appropriate procedure here? While I know this was not an ETOPS flight, if an engine shuts down during flight -- even if it relights, isn't it appropriate to land at the nearest suitable airport -- especially if the reason for the shutdown is not absolutely known with certainty by the crew. It will be interesting to learn what their thinking was in deciding to continue on to BRU.
I've never understood the logic of continuing if an engine shuts down and you then manage to restart it. It's not as if they shutdown as a matter of course. Something is wrong, even if you don't know what.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London
Age: 53
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, something wrong, but if you are up in the air, isn't the most conservative action to remain up there? Rather than to try to land overweight. The risk of an engine failure is not something that urgently demands you be on the ground ASAP.
No, but as you don't know why the engine failed (and then relit) in the first place, isn't the risk really more like the Cathay double failure case.
Departing from Kinshasa and problems with both engines would put contaminated fuel right at the top of the list. Icing could be a possibility as could any work done on the engines during the transit.
Start with the most likely and work from there.
Start with the most likely and work from there.
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: USA
Posts: 803
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The risk of both engines failing is something that urgently demands you to be on the ground ASAP.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nirvana..HAHA..just kidding but,if you can tell me where it is!
Posts: 350
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Use exactly this scenario during linetraining..you regain a failed engine,either after volcanic ash encounter,or for any other reason.
What kind of flight profile would you use for the diversion airport approach?...discussion point only.
Having had a birdstrike engine fail after 4 hours,at top of descent when thrust reduced to idle,inducing severe surge,a descent maintaining some degree of thrust may have prevented the surge.
if you really don't know why an engine failed,then fuel contamination is a possibility.....Whatever,..a diversion to overhead a SELECTED airport,then let down,so that in the very worst case,you have a better chance should the unimaginable happen.
All food for thought,is it not..
Safe and happy flying for 2019..
What kind of flight profile would you use for the diversion airport approach?...discussion point only.
Having had a birdstrike engine fail after 4 hours,at top of descent when thrust reduced to idle,inducing severe surge,a descent maintaining some degree of thrust may have prevented the surge.
if you really don't know why an engine failed,then fuel contamination is a possibility.....Whatever,..a diversion to overhead a SELECTED airport,then let down,so that in the very worst case,you have a better chance should the unimaginable happen.
All food for thought,is it not..
Safe and happy flying for 2019..
Last edited by Yaw String; 13th Jan 2019 at 18:37.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Either the back of a sim, or wherever Crewing send me.
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Brussels Airlines A330 - both engines failed
https://airwaysmag.com/airlines/brus...ngine-failure/
Would you really continue having relit the failed engine? I know I wouldn’t.
Would you really continue having relit the failed engine? I know I wouldn’t.
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Harbour Master Place
Posts: 662
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Already covered in this thread:A330-200 flameout / relight of both engines on approach
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: where I lay my hat
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nor me.
That's two extreme opposite approaches to dealing with an engine failure in a few weeks - Norwegian engine failure (just low oil pressure wasn't it?) - spiral down to a place you really really don't want to put a an aeroplane, it's passengers and crew, when a descent in a straight line would put you close to a good diversion field (KWI) ...
And continuing to destination in a twin, after an engine failure.
The sensible approach must be somewhere between (albeit closer to the former option imo) ..
That's two extreme opposite approaches to dealing with an engine failure in a few weeks - Norwegian engine failure (just low oil pressure wasn't it?) - spiral down to a place you really really don't want to put a an aeroplane, it's passengers and crew, when a descent in a straight line would put you close to a good diversion field (KWI) ...
And continuing to destination in a twin, after an engine failure.
The sensible approach must be somewhere between (albeit closer to the former option imo) ..
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Area 51
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Geneva to Brussels (287nm) is a bit further than Shiraz to KWI (243nm) would have been.
Incident: Brussels A332 near Geneva on Nov 5th 2018, engine shut down in flight
A Brussels Airlines Airbus A330-200, registration OO-SFZ performing flight SN-359 (dep Nov 4th) from Kinshasa N'djili (DR Congo) to Brussels (Belgium), was enroute at FL400 about 20nm east of Geneva (Switzerland) within French Airspace when the left hand engine (PW4168) emitted a loud bang, the crew received an "ENG1 STALL" warning. The crew shut the engine down, drifted down to FL280 and continued to Brussels for a safe landing about 55 minutes later.
Incident: Brussels A332 near Geneva on Nov 5th 2018, engine shut down in flight
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.
