Avianca A332, Santa Cruz fuel leak, lost 17 tons!
 

Video of it



Incident: Avianca A332 near Santa Cruz on Sep 14th 2013, fuel leak

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.

Seems very doubtful that the QRH was actioned or understood.....

......use of thrust reversers? :=

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.

From the comments on the link

Trent 772.

Yep, having looked at the footage several times, the reversers were used :eek:

Three words for this crew-------Fuel leak checklist :eek:

So, they knew they had a big leak because they immediately diverted to the nearest suitable airfield, good so far :ok: However they obviously didn't read the QRH or FCOM at all????????

Very bloody lucky they didn't burn...

Nice to see so many emergency vehicles in attendance! :eek: :uhoh:

The core jet efflux comes out of the back of a high-bypass turbofan engine whether or not the thrust reversers are being used. :O

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

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".

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.

Lajes, Azores.

That, coincidentally (or not), was another Trent-powered A330-200.

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.

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 :mad:
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.

@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.

Maybe and depends on the type

Then again some of us have got a tie as a result of a straight forward tank failure.

Jeez wept......the QRH was definitely not consulted. Th rev? No fire engines at end of runway to meet and greet.

I don't recall saying, or implying, that any RB211s had been built without the cold-stream reverser, only that early engines had both. References to the the hot-stream reverser survived in the engine Type Certificate up to 1982.

I'll remember not to expect to be rescued from a burning aircraft at Santa Cruz. Or to have a decent video taken of the accident for the memorial service.

Question:

With a significant fuel spill on the runways and taxiways, as in this incident, would braking be affected for following aircraft, or would the fuel evaporate fairly quickly and not have a significant detrimental effect?

Check list use
 

Fuel leak Check list is for leaks between spar valve ( low pressure cutoff valve) and engine . There is no check list ( boeing planes too.. ) dealing with fueĺ leaks before the spar valve wich is shut off by ENG MASTER shut off , such as fuel tanks .

Bolded text by myself .




CASE 1: IF ONE INNER TANK DEPLETES FASTER THAN THE OTHER BY AT LEAST 500 kg IN LESS THAN 30 min:

An engine leak may still be suspected. Therefore:

THR LEVER (engine of affected inner tank) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IDLE

ENG MASTER (engine of affected inner tank) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .OFF

FUEL LEAK. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .MONITOR

❖ If leak stops:

If the fuel quantity of the affected inner tank stops decreasing, the engine leak is confirmed and stopped.

L + R CTR PUMPS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ON

T TANK FEED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AUTO

WING X FEED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . USE AS RQRD The crossfeed valve can now be opened to re-balance fuel quantity, or to enable use of fuel from both wings. Do not restart the engine.

❖ If leak continues (after engine shutdown):

If the fuel quantity of the affected inner tank continues to decrease, a leak from the wing may be suspected.

ENGINE RESTART . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CONSIDER

FUEL LOSS REDUCTION proc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .CONSIDER

CAUTION ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Do not apply the FUEL IMBALANCE procedure. Approach and landing

With that cloud they were trailing on final, I have difficulty believing they tried very hard to determine which engine was the problem. A simple peek from a window behind the wing should have done the job.:*

Very good question. Not my initial reaction, but now you mention it I think a) would be the best option. You wouldn't have to taxi fast; the trucks could catch up and start spraying when you stopped.

The hypothetical evacuation could have been good; cabin crew look out door windows, see nothing untoward and evacuate straight into pooled fuel. :cool:

Almost certainly coincidental. The initiating factor there was an incorrectly fitted spacer bracket by Air Transat's maintenance - the replacement engine did not seem to have the bracket as part of the kit and, likely under some pressure to get the aircraft out and earning again, they assumed they could use the old one without checking the part number.

As it turned out the design had been revised and the brackets were not interchangeable. This meant that there was insufficient clearance between the hydraulic lines and the fuel lines and the former abraded the latter until it gave way.

Maybe Acutabove's point was that the thrust reversers divert the bypass air and prevent it from diluting and cooling the core jet efflux? I can't claim any special knowledge, but it doesn't seem entirely implausible that might increase the chance of igniting fuel mist behind the engine.

EZE-BOG diverting to VVI probably would have been around 2.5 hours after takeoff in EZE before they were on the ground again in VVI.

6t for the takeoff and climb (30 min), 1t for the descent and approach (25 min), and around 9.5t for the 1.5 hrs of the initial cruise.

It would mean the fuel leak was not that significant if 17t or the 42t was not in the tanks on landing, probably in the order of 1t.

I think the big issue on using reverse after landing with a massive fuel leak from the engine cowl would be that the fuel will be picked up and carried forward and then ingested into the engine inlet. This would cause the engine to "run away" and not respond to the throttle. Would have thought that shutting it down in flight would be preferable. Spar valve would cut off fuel flow and stop leak. But then, I'm only a maintenance person.
Re hot stream reversers. Both the B-747-100 with JT9D and the L-1011 with RB0211-22B initially had hot stream reversers also called hot stream spoilers. Both had them deactivated after service experience. Trying to keep push-pull cables running along a hot tailpipe on the B747 or high-speed flex cables and rotary jackscrews also adjacent to hot parts on the L-1011 proved to be bad ideas. They were a continual problem and maintenance breathed a sigh of relief when they were removed.

Easy to jump on the crew, but:

1. If they were using from the C Tank, would it not be quite difficult to "identify" the leak location (as fast as the R Inner Tank depletes it is topped up from the Centre)?
2. Ditto use of Reverse - and not sure a drill ever says avoid reverse on a running engine?
3. One reason to vacate, or at least not immediately shutdown, would be to position the aircraft with the affected engine / area downwind of the fuselage. As above, difficult to do until you have evidence of where the problem is.

Please NB this crew identified the problem, diverted, landed safely with seemingly nil damage, drama or injuries - unlike other well known occurrences. I am sure with 20:20 hindsight some things could have been optimised.

Having recently done Fuel Leak Sim training, in today's dumbed down world of following the drills, little emphasis on the effects of the fuel itself - all about management and especially avoiding use of crossfeed. I also think some of the above posters think Jet aircraft use Avags, rather than fairly inert Avtur ;)

You may well be right that the two incidents have nothing in common.

Having said that, the GPIAA Air Transat investigation found 12 probable causes and contributing factors, of which 7 were maintenance-related.

Two of the 12 Safety Recommendations made to NCAAs and EASA also related to configuration issues:

"Review applicable airworthiness regulations and standards as well as aircraft, engines and component maintenance manuals, to ensure that adequate defences exist in the pre-installation, maintenance planning process to detect major configuration differences and to establish the required support resources for technicians responsible for the work."

and

"Review the adequacy of the current standards for identifying the configuration and modification status of major components to ensure that differences between major components of similar part numbers can be easily identified."

It would be good to think that confusion over (non)-interchangeability, and time pressures on maintenance, have both been relegated to the past - but I doubt it, even if they turn out not to be implicated in this instance.

Mind You, fuel problems are not always easy to determine. Is it actual loss, or indication?

I remember one case in our CY when fuel was transferring in an absolute illogical way. It turned out piping form another tank that ran through the affected tank, leaked INTO that tank.

No checklist procedure coped with that problem, only aggravated the situation.
Thanks to one good thinking crew (and ACARS plus O/G technical staff....) they could find a solution and continue).

In defense: some remarks in this and other threads point to non-anglo or non "western" companies/crews as generally incompetent.
Having audited some of these companies (and also with former "eastern" countries) I have met real hot shot crews, extremely competent, well trained and above all motivated to perform excellent. And that in environments we only get bad dreams of.

"Western arrogance" I call it, and it is not fair to our colleagues whose cradles happened to be in another part of the world. And learned to speak English with an accent.

Looking at the video the leak was important, so is it 17t really disappeared and only around 8t were left in the tanks upon arrival ... ?

This is the kind of question I like, just the right number of big words, but not too big, the question is not real long, shows genuine concern for following aircraft. Good stuff.

Re DaveReidUK post:
The misfitting of fuel line spacers at an Air France maintenance facility seems to be a problem, re the axle spacer on the Concorde. If commercial pressures actually do over-ride safety, then something is drastically wrong. How did it pass inspection? I spent over fifty years in maintenance and quality control both working and managing. Mistakes like this are your worst nightmare. You set procedures like detailed sign-offs for each step and back it with quality control procedures so they do not occur.
Once in my career, a plane I worked on, actually an Avianca Super Connie, crashed, You cannot understand how low I and the other techs who had worked on it felt until we learned that it was not maintenance related accident. It still left a lesson engraved on me that I carried for the rest of my career.
Still do not understand why an engine trailing a huge fuel plume would be kept operating and reverse used after touchdown?

WOW! That is quite some fuel leak!

Actually, I'd expect a he!l of a compressor stall with fire belching out the intake.
A Diesel might run away with excess fuel, but most jet engines protest loudly.:}

Spectacular compressor stalls and uncontrolled fuel spillage are nothing to be trifled with. Seen it up close and it wasn't pretty.

A Spanish-speaking layman's observation:

a) pretty relaxed atmosphere in the tower. There was sufficient interest to film the landing but not to understand the implications and potential consequences of the fuel leak evidently trailing behind the starboard wing, and act upon them. At an early stage in the clip someone answers the phone and says "completamente desconocido" which I take as referring to the novelty of an Avianca aircraft landing.

b) Not 100% sure about this but the impression from the tower/aircraft talk is that the flight deck only learned where the leak was when they were on the taxiway opposite the tower. Seems surprising and I wonder if indeed they even tried to have a look from one of the windows at the rear. And if they did, whether the fuel trail would have been visible up close, from immediately opposite the trail. It is in the clip but of course that's from a totally different angle.

c) Hot brakes. Viru Viru is just over 11,000 ft and they turned off at the first available exit, having used around 3/4 of the available runway. With convenient 20:20 hindsight I wonder whether using the remaining length of the runway might not have assisted in cooling the brakes to a less threatening temperature.