Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
China Eastern A343 Makes Emergency Landing At YVR.  
User currently offlineStas From Poland, joined Mar 2008, 0 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 9969 times:

http://www.news1130.com/news/local/article.jsp?content=20051102_191534_3816

Quote:

Local News
Chinese airliner makes emergency landing at YVR
November 02, 2005 - 4:15 pm
By: Claudia Kwan

A tense situation has ended in relief for passengers aboard a plane circling Vancouver International Airport. A China Eastern Airbus A340-300 has made an emergency landing with 273 people aboard including 16 crew members. The plane took off just before two o'clock from YVR when crew members discovered an engine problem. The decision was made to circle over Vancouver Island to burn off some of the fuel then make an emergency landing. A plane carrying this many people destined for an international location is quite large and weight is a crucial issue when trying to land. The airport says the next step is to let the passengers off the plane and check out the engine to see what the problem is. If they can fix it, they'll just put the passengers back on the plane and send them off to Shanghai later tonight. If not, then the passengers will have to be put up in nearby hotels and then send them off in another plane tomorrow.


[Edited 2005-11-03 03:55:05]

27 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently onlineBoeing744 From Canada, joined Jun 2005, 1820 posts, RR: 24
Reply 1, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 9812 times:

Wow, good thing everything turned out alright! Too bad it didn't land at YYJ Wink I thought I heard a jet at low altitude a couple times today. Usually only turboprops fly over my house. Could that be this?

User currently offlineMarshalN From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2005, 1521 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 9794 times:

Hmm, that's possible, since I'd imagine they ahve to be shoved off somewhere in a holding pattern, but clearly the engine problem isn't serious enough for them to dump fuel and land immediately.

User currently offlineN754PR From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 9637 times:

Well, One engine out is not a big deal on modern jets.... seems the press made this into a big story once again.

User currently offlineGkirk From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2000, 24824 posts, RR: 56
Reply 4, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 9623 times:

Ground all A340s! Bloody dangerous things!
 stirthepot  duck 



When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
User currently offlineJush From Germany, joined Apr 2005, 1636 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 9621 times:

Well the story isn't that big and the press while making it bigger than it is didn't make it that big. So peeeleassse don't bash the press here once again.

Regards
jush



There is one problem with airbus. Though their products are engineering marvels they lack passion, completely.
User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31580 posts, RR: 57
Reply 6, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 9569 times:

Quoting Stas (Thread starter):
The decision was made to circle over Vancouver Island to burn off some of the fuel then make an emergency landing

Why no Fuel Dumping.
regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4675 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 9430 times:

Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 6):
Why no Fuel Dumping.

Why should you damage the environment when it´s not necessary ? As it has been said, 1 engine out on the A340 is not a big deal.



Exceptions confirm the rule.
User currently offlineANother From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 9352 times:

Quote:
Why no Fuel Dumping.

I don't believe any Airbus aircraft are capable of dumping fuel. Any pilots / mechanics / engineers out there?


User currently offlineRotate From Switzerland, joined Feb 2003, 1488 posts, RR: 16
Reply 9, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 9283 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ANother (Reply 8):
I don't believe any Airbus aircraft are capable of dumping fuel. Any pilots / mechanics / engineers out there?

Excuse me? what do you think how fuel then should be get rif of in emergency cases? of course it is possibel to dump fuel ....



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Dna
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Richard Zeman



rgds robin



ABC
User currently offlineANother From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 9254 times:

Thanks for the clarification (but isn't that second picutre a L1011?). One of my colleagues mentioned that airbus couldn't dump fuel - and I guess I misunderstood.

User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31580 posts, RR: 57
Reply 11, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 9221 times:

Quoting ANother (Reply 10):
One of my colleagues mentioned that airbus couldn't dump fuel - and I guess I misunderstood.

Your Colleague was probably talking of the A320 Family.
regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineBkkair From Thailand, joined Aug 2001, 409 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 9138 times:

Don't MU fly the A346 on this route? I doubt it was a 343.

Same thing happened to MU586 (a A346) on 6 Oct from LAX. Dumped fuel right after takoff from LAX and landed. The flight was then delayed until the next day and finally cancelled completely.


User currently offlineBuckFifty From Canada, joined Oct 2001, 1316 posts, RR: 20
Reply 13, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 9094 times:

Only on the larger Airbuses have a fuel jettison system. Most 320's and even 330's won't have a fuel jettison system. However, it is standard equipment on most 340's.

It really depends on the potential routes the aircraft is destined to fly. A fuel jettison system adds weight and complexity to the aircraft, and costs money. If it can be deleted, it will. Overweight landings, while not performed regularly, usually will not damage the aircraft in any significant way. Most likely you may see a burst tire or two if the landing was hard, other than that, it isn't a big drama.


User currently offlineAirPacific747 From Denmark, joined May 2008, 2316 posts, RR: 21
Reply 14, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 8507 times:

Quoting A342 (Reply 7):
Why should you damage the environment when it´s not necessary ? As it has been said, 1 engine out on the A340 is not a big deal.

It does not necessarily damaga the environment more than flying around for hours. If you dump it at a high alttitude, it will vaporize before hitting the ground.


User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4675 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 8075 times:

Quoting AirPacific747 (Reply 14):
If you dump it at a high alttitude, it will vaporize before hitting the ground.

IF is the word here. Do you want to climb to a high altitude with an engine out ? Can you do it with a full aircraft ? Not even allowed for twins as there wouldn´t be a backup for cabin bleed air. As someone reported, it circled in a low altidude.



Exceptions confirm the rule.
User currently offlineAirPacific747 From Denmark, joined May 2008, 2316 posts, RR: 21
Reply 16, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 7982 times:

Quoting A342 (Reply 15):
IF is the word here. Do you want to climb to a high altitude with an engine out ? Can you do it with a full aircraft ? Not even allowed for twins as there wouldn´t be a backup for cabin bleed air. As someone reported, it circled in a low altidude.

True, but I dont think you have to be that high up, and the A340 should be able to climb with 3 engines. So what if you are 5000 feet higher up? if the engines go out, you can glide down and you have more time to land.


User currently onlineBoeing744 From Canada, joined Jun 2005, 1820 posts, RR: 24
Reply 17, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 7849 times:

Quoting Bkkair (Reply 12):
Don't MU fly the A346 on this route? I doubt it was a 343.

They switch it often to a 343.


User currently offlineCloudyapple From Hong Kong, joined Jul 2005, 2453 posts, RR: 9
Reply 18, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 7676 times:

Quoting AirPacific747 (Reply 16):
if the engines go out, you can glide down and you have more time to land.

Most laughable comment award~

Raw hydrocarbon is just as bad as exhaust carbon dioxide. It's much more about the danger posed than environmental damage when the dumped fuel reaches the ground. If you choose to circle over land and you're over populated area at low altitude you never dump fuel but only to burn it off. When you are over water that doesn't matter but dumping fuel is simply quicker. Remember you have a load of anxious passengers in the back OEI.

Aside, you NEVER climb high with a broken engine. OEI is fine on a quad but there is a risk of the remaining ones flaming out for the same issue.

Just think about the BA saga.



A310/A319/20/21/A332/3/A343/6/A388/B732/5/7/8/B742/S/4/B752/B763/B772/3/W/E145/J41/MD11/83/90
User currently offlineAirPacific747 From Denmark, joined May 2008, 2316 posts, RR: 21
Reply 19, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 7616 times:

Quoting Cloudyapple (Reply 18):
Most laughable comment award~
Raw hydrocarbon is just as bad as exhaust carbon dioxide. It's much more about the danger posed than environmental damage when the dumped fuel reaches the ground. If you choose to circle over land and you're over populated area at low altitude you never dump fuel but only to burn it off. When you are over water that doesn't matter but dumping fuel is simply quicker. Remember you have a load of anxious passengers in the back OEI.


Aside, you NEVER climb high with a broken engine. OEI is fine on a quad but there is a risk of the remaining ones flaming out for the same issue.

Just think about the BA saga.

lol.. glad you are having fun. doesn't seem like you need much to amuse yourself. Guess your life must be pretty boring dont see the fun part about it myself lol.

please refer to what A342 wrote.

[Edited 2005-11-03 22:01:23]

[Edited 2005-11-03 22:02:14]

[Edited 2005-11-03 22:05:46]

[Edited 2005-11-03 22:07:50]

User currently offlineMarshalN From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2005, 1521 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 7484 times:

What sort of altittude can an A343 maintain with only 3 engines anyway? Just wondering

But yeah, it seemed like no biggie. Clearly the plane wasn't in any immediate danger (fire or that sort of thing) to warrant dumping fuel, so no reason to do it. Just sucks to be a pax in the back getting anxious though.

I seem to remember the MU flight from Britain (was it LHR) to PVG that had a tailstrike during takeoff. Now that's dangerous...

[Edited 2005-11-03 22:20:09]

User currently offlineAirPacific747 From Denmark, joined May 2008, 2316 posts, RR: 21
Reply 21, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 7412 times:

Quoting MarshalN (Reply 20):
What sort of altittude can an A343 maintain with only 3 engines anyway? Just wondering

But yeah, it seemed like no biggie. Clearly the plane wasn't in any immediate danger (fire or that sort of thing) to warrant dumping fuel, so no reason to do it. Just sucks to be a pax in the back getting anxious though.

I seem to remember the MU flight from Britain (was it LHR) to PVD that had a tailstrike during takeoff. Now that's dangerous...

I agree. I did not say that the plane should have dumped the fuel instead because I dont know every aspect of this particular case. I was just saying that dumping the fuel does not have to be more environmental damaging than flying around the same spot for hours. But from what I have read, it would seem like an option to dump the fuel also. I am pretty sure the A343 has to be able to climb on 3 engines in case of an emergency. For example of it gets engine problems while rotating, it has to be able to gain altittude with only 3 engines I would imagine.
Some people on this forum seem to misunderstand it.

[Edited 2005-11-03 22:22:25]

User currently offlinePictues From Canada, joined Nov 2004, 246 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 7328 times:

they did dump fuel before landing.

User currently offlineKtachiya From Japan, joined Sep 2004, 1781 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 6216 times:

Quoting Bkkair (Reply 12):
Don't MU fly the A346 on this route? I doubt it was a 343

They keep on alternating on every other day. So somedays, it is the 600 while other days, its the 300.



Flown on: DC-10-30, B747-200B, B747-300, B747-300SR, B747-400, B747-400D, B767-300, B777-200, B777-200ER, B777-300
User currently offlineBuckFifty From Canada, joined Oct 2001, 1316 posts, RR: 20
Reply 24, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 6081 times:

I just saw the picture of the CX A346 in one of the replies above. That was interesting, I was called out from reserve to do the continuation of that flight.

Quoting Cloudyapple (Reply 18):
Aside, you NEVER climb high with a broken engine. OEI is fine on a quad but there is a risk of the remaining ones flaming out for the same issue.



Quoting A342 (Reply 15):
IF is the word here. Do you want to climb to a high altitude with an engine out ? Can you do it with a full aircraft ? Not even allowed for twins as there wouldn´t be a backup for cabin bleed air. As someone reported, it circled in a low altidude.

That depends on what happened with the engine, really. For example, if it was on fire, and with both bottles discharged, I would just turn and go back to the airport. There are so many scenarios, it depends on the situation and what the aircraft allows us to do in order to consider a dump. If fuel dumping is available, and we are over non-populated areas (or restricted dumping areas), then yes, we will dump the fuel to return. In this case, taking off out of Vancouver, there is nothing which will restrict us from dumping the fuel.

Also, there isn't an edict that says you cannot climb with an engine failure, that is quite a misnomer. Terrain, for example, is an issue. Vancouver and the surrounding area is quite mountainous, with MRA's which are well over 10000ft in some cases. You never put yourself in a situation with little or no options. The lower you are, the more hazards you present yourself, that's unless if you have a big hole in your fuselage, or if something was on fire.

A 340 with an engine out at max weight would probably make anywhere from FL210 to 270, depending on the conditions. The climb may be quite slow, but yes, the aircraft is certified to do it.

As for backup for cabin bleed air, that's not even an issue. In a quad, there is sufficient bleed sources to keep the aircraft pressurized, even if another engine goes out. As for a twin, you have no choice, because if you lost another engine, keeping the cabin pressurized is the least of your worries.


25 Cruiser : I was under the impression that when a plane dumps fuel, the fuel vaporizes before hitting the ground. Thus, it would not really affect the environme
26 AirPacific747 : I am pretty sure that is the case. Well fuel for your car also vaporizes if you put some on the ground after a short time. I cant tell you the techni
27 ACDC8 : I couldn't tell you the actual science behind it myself either. However, it is an environmental issue. If the media reports that an aircraft dumped i
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
EK A343 Makes Emergency Landing At JNB posted Sat Apr 10 2004 14:18:52 by SA006
C172 Makes Emergency Landing At Opa Locka posted Tue Sep 19 2006 22:53:05 by AirTranTUS
SQ Flight Makes Emergency Landing At DPS posted Sun Aug 27 2006 14:29:58 by GneissGuy
Jet Airways A340 Makes Emergency Landing At BOM posted Sun Aug 13 2006 12:03:30 by Gashwin
AC Flight Makes Emergency Landing At BWI posted Fri Aug 11 2006 01:21:46 by YEGer
AA 777 Makes Emergency Landing At Dublin posted Mon Jun 12 2006 12:14:45 by Braybuddy
Am 757 Makes Emergency Landing At HMO posted Tue Nov 29 2005 03:16:51 by HMOMX
NW Airlink Plane Makes Emergency Landing At BDL posted Mon Oct 10 2005 03:01:16 by FlyTweed
AA 903 Makes Emergency Landing At MIA posted Sun Oct 2 2005 23:29:48 by 797
Northwest DC-9 Makes Emergency Landing At STL posted Sun Sep 11 2005 01:31:01 by KarlB737