A300-600 in Sharm
 

A flight from Britain carrying 350 passengers on board made an emergency landing at Egypt’s Sharm el-Sheikh airport. According to reports, the flight experienced an engine problem forcing the pilot to make an emergency landing. No one was hurt and the passengers exited the flight in normally.

The flight was an Airbus A380 carrying 350 passengers. The head of the Egyptian airports company told journalists that the flight had to land after an issue with one of the plane’s engines

Monarch A300?

The Aviation Herald is reporting a Monarch A300... usually a reliable source.

Incident: Monarch A306 near Sharm el Sheikh on Aug 8th 2013, engine shut down in flight

By Simon Hradecky, created Thursday, Aug 8th 2013 22:09Z, last updated Thursday, Aug 8th 2013 22:24Z
A Monarch Airlines Airbus A300-600, registration G-MAJS performing flight ZB-248 from London Gatwick,EN (UK) to Sharm el Sheikh (Egypt) with 262 people on board, was descending towards Sharm el Sheikh, estimated to land about 15 minutes later, when the crew declared emergency reporting the left hand engine (CF6) had failed due to fuel no longer reaching the engine and was shut down. The aircraft landed safely in Sharm el Sheikh.

The return flight was cancelled.

Airport Officials reported a Monarch Airbus A380 with 350 passengers reported engine trouble (editorial note: Monarch does not (yet) operate Airbus A380-800s).

The airline reported a warning indication in the cockpit illuminated.

Fit for a king ...
 

I think it's still the highest-density A300-600: 361 seats.

sounds like sub-idle

361 is correct:

SeatGuru Seat Map Monarch Airbus A300-600 (AB6)

While not wishing to seem pedantic, can't someone educate the journos of the difference between a precautionary landing and an emergency landing?

It seems to me that the crew executed a precautionary landing ... which is usually intended to prevent a situation from becoming an emergency. :ok:

Well the A300 is a twin engined aircraft so if they shut down one of the two engines then would it not be considered an emergency?

A fair point, A4, but even with only one engine, it flies, and is controllable.

Then again, I expect you would declare an emergency if the donk quit, in order to get appropriate handling from ATC and preferential landing position, so maybe I'm being unfair to the journos on this one.

To my way of thinking, if you have one engine, and it quits, you have an emergency. If you have multiple engines, and one quits, you have a malfunction, but you are still flying. (Yes, it's a major malfunction ...)

Whilst not wishing to be pedantic can't someone educate the journos of the difference between a 2 engined and a 4 engined a/c. Since when have Monarch had 380's?

Current seat config is 352.

Maybe if the journos would spend more time at the Spotters' sub-forum they could learn the difference. :E:cool:

Whilst not wishing to be pedantic it would be good to of had a link to the journo's error.

All I see here is OP's words not a link to an article.

I'd certainly declare an emergency with an engine shut down in a twin.

And, the recent CYA thinking for U.S. carriers seems to be that you should declare an emergency for lesser problems to avoid being violated for not going into holding, having a Kumbya session with the dispatcher, maintenance, subject matter experts, the manufacturer and maybe the feds.

If you feel it is safer to take immediate action and get the aircraft on the ground on a long dry runway that you can see below you without an amended dispatch release, a check of OPSPECS, runway landing data etc., you'd better declare an emergency to make sure every decision you made is covered by FAR 91.3

Back in the day it used to be 'you are the captain, you ran the checklist correctly and took care of the problem, you got the plane down safely. Fill out a report when you get a moment, we'll forward it to the feds. It was your call and we stand behind your decisions, you were there, we were not, good job!'

Now it's 'you did not properly notify dispatch and scheduling before getting ATC approval to land with the flap problem, you asked for the equipment standing by but did not use the word emergency, the other pilot filed an ASAP report within the time window but yours was an hour late and not accepted, you pulled the CVR circuit breaker but did not annotate it separately in the maintenance log from your flap writeup. Since you didn't formally declare an emergency and your ASAP report wasn't accepted, the POI is looking at it and you'll probably get a letter from the feds on this one...'

Isn't one of the reasons you would declare an emergency in a twin with one out because (if you are not a B757, anyway), you can't really do a good go-around if the previous flight is tardy in vacating the runway.

OEI performance
 

Why doesn't someone merely open the A300-600 AFM and verify that there's a certified chapter containing performance data with one donk out of service? This issue is a no-brainer. :ugh:

Actually, the problem the A306 has compared to the B-757 is that the 'Bus goes to full TOGA thrust when you hit the go levers (or whatever they're called). Not as bad as an A310 but you get a large pitch up moment even on a single engine when light.

The '75 spools the engine(s) up on the go around but then throttles back to maintain a manageable 2000 fpm climb if you are on autopilot or following the flight directors. If you pitch over to try to accelerate instead of climb before selecting another pitch mode, the autothrottle will keep adding power since it thinks you need more to get 2000 fpm.

Obviously, we are talking glass cockpit jet airliner twins here, piston twins grandfathered under some ancient rule are a different ballgame and may only take you to scene of the crash in some scenarios with an engine out from what I've read here.

Some reasons for that would be more urgent (and less likely) than others. Any more details?

monarch's 4 a300-600's have given sterling service since 1990...
with most of the time with 361 seats in a 3-3-3 config

yes its very tight, they used to send them to the Maldives via BAH....
but a real workhouse,
just like KT Tristars with 400 seats which did go-sick
quite often LOL causes us lots of headaches especially went 2 went tech together on the every Friday night as always in July and august...

they are all (the a300's) due to be retired in next year or so...

there has been very few incidents with in service with monarch over the past 23 years no serious events at all...this one though if the report is correct of fuel starvation is quite serious imho and the inspections will of interest to all concerned.

the a/c was on descent to SSH,
350 pax on the return flight waiting...hotels a plenty though in SSH