Thomas Cook A332 (G-OMYT) - 3 engine shut downs in 3 weeks
 

Incident: Thomas Cook A332 over Atlantic on Oct 26th 2012, engine shut down in flight


Incident: Thomas Cook A332 near Shannon on Nov 9th 2012, engine malfunction

Incident: Thomas Cook A332 near Belfast on Nov 17th 2012, engine shut down in flight





Incident: Thomas Cook A332 over Atlantic on Oct 26th 2012, engine shut down in flight

Incident: Thomas Cook A332 near Shannon on Nov 9th 2012, engine malfunction

Incident: Thomas Cook A332 near Belfast on Nov 17th 2012, engine shut down in flight

Are you suggesting that this is statistically significant ?

DaveReidUK

as I recall, non normal shutdowns are of great interest, and significance, to the CAA regarding ETOPS approval.

Especially as all 3 involved the engines fitted in the right hand position. I say engines, as according to the report on the first incident the engine was replaced.

Some more fault finding required I would say......

Hysteria alert
 

Bringing an engine back to idle power is NOT a shutdown. It happens quite regularly, as the manufacturer's approved technique to deal with high vibrations, compressor stall, high EGT's and the like.

Scurrilous comments about the airline and their engineering are about as wrong as defamatory statements about the engine manufacturer. (R-R)

Apologies
 

Apologies, my reason for posting was not for any other purpose than to bring to peoples attention and for a possible discussion. I would be interested to know if this aircraft is back in service and if the engine was replaced.
Again apologies to those who have taken offence and apologies for posting a 3 engine shut downs instead of 2

are the 3 incidents similarly related ie to a particular part or accessory in the engines or are all 3 different scenarios?
(one engine was changed at KEF so it is not the same engine each time)

if the 3 are similar in event then that maybe could be to handling, operational procedure issue or maintenance or bloody bad luck really or a combo of the 3

BA had a 747-100 (maybe a 200?) ex Cale that was nicknamed going-sick (its last 2 regn letters were GS) and then Virgin bought it.
she always was troublesome with similar probs until Virgin threw shedloads of £'s on her then she behaved very nicely.

foxmoth and Mr Bloggs - you are saying that AvHerald reported the incidents incorrectly, then? They reported 3 shutdowns. What actually happened, then?

Apparently, ICAO is currently reviewing their ETOPS guidance. One area that is getting attention is whether or not reducing thrust to idle during an ETOPS flight should qualify as a shutdown. Why are you reducing it to idle unless it's not functioning as per design? What would happen if you needed it due to the loss of the "good" one?

- there we have it - foxmoth says AvHerald is wrong. In my book, when you shut the fuel lever on an engine that is a 'shutdown'. Obviously not in the world these folk live in.

It would be totally self-evident to anyone with a brain in their head, let alone a pilot, that 3 losses of power in 3 weeks on the same engine are not just statistically significant - they are major events. Whether you shut it down completely or idle it for a high engine vibration is neither here nor there - you have lost power from that engine. Having both idled an engine in flight and shut one down, I can tell you that both are 'significant events' in the minds of any pilot. The advantage of not shutting one down completely is obviously that you are likely to have retained the services of the auxiliary gearbox and therefore kept associated hydraulics and electrics. In many cases of engine damage (I do not know about this one), any attempt at bringing up the engine power would just result in further high vibration and significant engine damage. That presumably is why the engine was idled in the first place. I would venture to suggest that TC management most definitely will see these events as significant and that a whole lot of senior bods will be taking a massive interest in this.

Blogg's statement
 

QUOTE "Bringing an engine back to idle power is NOT a shutdown"

I guess this description depends on which side of the fence you are defending (or trying to trivialise) the throttle being retarded to idle, thereby producing a condition of drag on that side of the aircraft and changing the ultimate safety level, particularily when far out of range of landable terrain.

ALL engine problems are of concern and cannot be trivialised when in flight and I suggest that an airliner full of passengers or cargo flying from the middle of the Atlantic to a safe runway has a crew that feels their sphyncter valves do overtime !

Therefore, when an engine cannot be relied upon to produce full, or even approach thrust for a required length of time, it can be considered the same as a windmilling ("shut-down") engine.

If Blogg had mentioned the probability of false engine warnings, it would still be a matter of concern, for the above quoted reasons.

OK, given that it's now clear they were all on the same aircraft, I stand corrected.

Having seen that the links were to AvHerald reports, I didn't feel inclined to follow them. :)

Edit: or of course I could have just read the thread title properly :\

Sully's bus didn't technically suffer an engine shut down either. So just a normal day at the office? :cool:

Right foxmoth - obviously inside information. So you are confirming that AvHerald was wrong in its report. That's what I asked but you did chose not to answer.

"Passenger Alan Wilson reported (see user comments at Incident: Thomas Cook A332 over Atlantic on Oct 26th 2012, engine shut down in flight) that he heard a loud bang in the cabin. The captain later reported the right hand engine (Trent 772) had stalled, had been restarted but needed a check." - I did:ugh: Did you?

Apparently they remounted an old engine to save some £'s.

Nor do you leave old tired engines around for emergecy use and mix them with another tired engine already on the plane.

The idea to manage fleets is to avoid inflight shut downs, air-turn-backs and diversions as they simply waste resources compared to having ready 'good" spares available. Thus you cycle engines through shops ASAP in order to make them available as spares. It's a matter of spend now or spend a lot more later.

Spares are as-good-as-new and enough are available (even via lease) to not having to put an engine on that needs to be taken off before the next scheduled hangar check.

I was sitting at 30w a track above monarch when I heard their mayday in Oct. Their decision making re what alternate was embarrassing when kef was the only show in town...didn't sound like they had a clue of the WX anywhere and ETPs didnt appear to based diversion tactic .....likewise the RT from the F/O was at best grimacing running towards verbal diarrhea.

Delta a week later and it was Deja vu has a similar issue at 30w. They made the call, position, intention, nature of problem...copy gander/copy Shanwick .... It was a wrap....more or less radio silence until they were passed over into radio range of gander VHF.

Bearcat, Monarch?

Mr Bloggs,

In 15 years, I have never had to throttle back for any kind of engine exceedence. I have only known two colleagues to do so, and that was after engine damage from major bird ingestion that resulted in full shut downs anyway. It is not a routine or regular even for turbine engines to exceed operating limits.

It'll be interesting to read about the cause of the problem, because three failures with the engine swapped out between suggests problems elsewhere.