Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Tech Log
Reload this Page >

A330, Fuel leak, vs. Engine Failure with damage.

Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

A330, Fuel leak, vs. Engine Failure with damage.

Old 23rd Jun 2017, 05:43
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: US
Posts: 110
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A330, Fuel leak, vs. Engine Failure with damage.

Dear All,

In case of an engine failure WITH damage, the ECAM requires the inner tank splits to be ON, closing the split between tanks. Presumably, this is done in case the engine failure was not contained and you'd have bits of the engine puncturing holes in the tank. If no fuel leak is evident, you're allowed to 'unsplit' the tanks again.

So far so good, but why is it that in the fuel leak checklist, the inner tank split isn't even mentioned? Can anybody explain the difference between a leak as a result from an engine failure and a leak resulting from something else, and, more importantly, why Airbus treats it differently?

KingAir1978 is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2017, 07:28
  #2 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Oztrailia
Posts: 2,994
Received 15 Likes on 11 Posts
Airbus was asked this question,

The aim of the inner tank split valve is to separate the forward and aft parts of the inner tank in the case of an engine rotor burst. According to the test results, if the engine is damaged and the engine rotor bursts, some pieces of rotors will most likely to affect the forward part of the corresponding inner tank. As a result, the inner tank split valve allows an isolation of the forward part of the inner tank, and saves the fuel in the aft part of the inner tank.
There are cases that the inner tank split valves should be isolated. When the engine is damaged, the flight crew has to apply the ENG 1(2) FAIL procedure and close the split valve on each side, as stated as the “L+R INR TK SPLIT.........ON” action line in the ENG 1(2) FAIL procedure.

Therefore, we would like to inform that the fuel leak procedure does not directly require closing the inner tank split valves, as the probability of having a wing fuel leak that does not result from an engine rotor burst is extremely low.

In case of structural leak, the “ENG 1(2) FAIL” ECAM warning will always trigger, asking the flight crew to split the inner tanks. In the “FUEL LEAK” paper procedure, in the “CASE 1: IF ONE INNER TANK DEPLETES FASTER THAN THE OTHER BY AT LEAST 500 KG (1 100 lb) IN LESS THAN 30 MIN”, it states that if the leak continues after engine shutdown, a leak from the wing may be suspected. In this case, the leak from the wing can be due to transfer valves failures. In such a failure case, there is no benefit to split the two parts of the inner tanks.
ACMS is offline  
Old 21st Oct 2017, 12:11
  #3 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Portugal
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
And why do you close the tank split valves on both wings if you only had 1 engine failure? Why not close the split on the wing with the failed engine?
luisr320 is offline  
Old 9th Mar 2018, 08:55
  #4 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Portugal
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Anyone knows what is the fuel capacity of each half of a inner tank, In other word, if you split the tanks, how much fuel will be available on each half inner tank, if they were full to begin with?
luisr320 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

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.