Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
China Airlines A330 Both GE Engine Shut Down  
User currently offlineCelestar From Singapore, joined Jul 2001, 398 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 2 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 23341 times:

Just heard from local news in Taiwan, apparently, there was a China Airlines A330-300 flying from Kaohsiung to Hong Kong, with both engines experienced in-flight shut down. The news stated this occur for about one minute before engine were re-started. It is very scary as both engines should not be experiencing this failure mode. The news then stated that China Airlines as well as EVA both has since updated the software from GE to all its engine on the A330 fleet.
Do anyone knows more details about this news? What does software got to do with such failure?

By the way, this news was from someone internal to China Airlines and this incident happened recently.

37 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineKaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12431 posts, RR: 37
Reply 1, posted (7 years 2 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 23289 times:

There was a snippet in the news section recently, saying just that the Taiwanese CAA is investigating the incident.

Given the reliability of modern engines, and the GE CF6-80C2 is among the most reliable, a single failure is extremely unlikely, but a double engine failure is very much moreso, unless there was some fault in the fuel system or related systems.

I know many airlines, among them our own Aer Lingus, have been operating GE powered A330s for a lot longer than CI and have never experienced a similar problem.


User currently offlineQatarA340 From Qatar, joined May 2006, 1818 posts, RR: 6
Reply 2, posted (7 years 2 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 23243 times:

Didnt QR experience a similar situation with their double flame-out on their then brand-new A332 on Shanghi last year?
I believe it also has GE engines.



لا اله الا الله محمد رسول الله
User currently offlineLTU932 From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 13864 posts, RR: 50
Reply 3, posted (7 years 2 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 23193 times:

Quoting Kaitak (Reply 1):
Given the reliability of modern engines, and the GE CF6-80C2 is among the most reliable, a single failure is extremely unlikely, but a double engine failure is very much moreso, unless there was some fault in the fuel system or related systems.

GE powered A330s actually use the CF6-80E1 and not the C2 version. So the reliability question lies with the CF6-80E1, which isn't as established in the market as the PW4168A and Trent 772 are.


User currently offlineEDDB From Germany, joined Aug 2006, 244 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (7 years 2 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 23070 times:

Quoting Celestar (Thread starter):
What does software got to do with such failure?

Probably everything! With an all engine flame out, there are only 3 possible causes...
1. external damage (birdstrike on both, volcanic ash, severe icing, and so on) - unlikely in this case
2. fuel shortage (greetings from Air Transat!) - totally unlikely since they restarted them
3. software bug - most probably since the other possibilities can be ruled out

Todays engines are controlled by a computer called FADEC which is attached to the engine with all the other accessories (accessory gear box), and FADEC gets its commands from the primary flight computers! Since we all know that computers need to be programmed and human beings do make mistakes, things like the above can happen and do happen, or as an Airbus chief technician once said:"Bullshit in, bullshit out..."
I just hope things like this wont happen while crossing the atlantic or pacific or on airway L888 over central asia....


User currently offlineKaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12431 posts, RR: 37
Reply 5, posted (7 years 2 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 23069 times:

Silly me - yes, of course, I should have said '80E1. But they are very reliable anyway.

User currently offlineBurkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4395 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (7 years 2 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 22992 times:

I bet for an unforessen situation in the software. Software is called software because it cannot be made hard. Every computer system is subject to failure - all you can do is to reduce the probability it happens, and to provide backups to avoid software bugs to lead to a desaster - but even that may fail.

This said, it is a fact that modern software seems to have less failures than modern humans - so no way back to flight engineer looking at the engines to turn.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12445 posts, RR: 25
Reply 7, posted (7 years 2 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 22591 times:

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 6):
Software is called software because it cannot be made hard.

Umm, no. If you'd like we could all go back to programming computers with wires, like the first computers were. Then it'd be plenty hard, but it'd still be software. Besides, most "hardware" these days is software downloaded into FPGAs or burned into ASICs. This kind of "hardware" has the same kind of defects seen in software: conditions arise that the human designers didn't plan for, or the tool that converted the human logic into machine-usable form had a flaw.

There are forms of hardware and software that can be mathematically proven to be correct but almost no one does so because (a) it's incredibly expensive to do so, and (b) it requires incredibly exact specifications to be generated, and if the specifications are incorrect all the math does is prove that an incorrect specification was programmed correctly.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31679 posts, RR: 56
Reply 8, posted (7 years 2 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 22533 times:

If this is a Software error.Its serious.Is there an AD issued.
regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineBurkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4395 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (7 years 2 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 22281 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 7):
There are forms of hardware and software that can be mathematically proven to be correct but almost no one does so because (a) it's incredibly expensive to do so, and (b) it requires incredibly exact specifications to be generated, and if the specifications are incorrect all the math does is prove that an incorrect specification was programmed correctly.

That is exactly my message. Only if all input parameters of a system are known, software can be provided for all of them. This includes details like Who is sitting where with which electronic equipment switched on doing what, what's the weather, etc. In real life I never came across a situation were the specifications were better than an advanced guess of what might happen and be relevant, combined with some assumed worst case scenarios and some random noise/errors mixed in. Most problems arise when an input is ignored as irrelevant that isn't. Not saying that I have seen many programs that act as specified always...


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12445 posts, RR: 25
Reply 10, posted (7 years 2 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 22065 times:

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 9):
That is exactly my message. Only if all input parameters of a system are known, software can be provided for all of them. This includes details like Who is sitting where with which electronic equipment switched on doing what, what's the weather, etc. In real life I never came across a situation were the specifications were better than an advanced guess of what might happen and be relevant, combined with some assumed worst case scenarios and some random noise/errors mixed in. Most problems arise when an input is ignored as irrelevant that isn't. Not saying that I have seen many programs that act as specified always...

Thanks for the clarification. I should not have keyed off the statement

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 6):
Software is called software because it cannot be made hard.

.. instead of your main point ..

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 6):
I bet for an unforessen situation in the software.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9029 posts, RR: 75
Reply 11, posted (7 years 2 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 21978 times:

Quoting Celestar (Thread starter):

Do anyone knows more details about this news? What does software got to do with such failure?

Only aware of one incident, that was QR, the flight international article is http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...shanghai-believed-to-be-types.html

If something happened today, I would not be surprised, Wx was not the best in the area. Often see temperature changes of over 15 degrees in less than a second associated with the heavy supercooled rain.

Airbus let everyone know what happened in that QR event, this is the operator telex....

Quote:
TO: ALL A330 OPERATORS

SUBJECT: ATA 72 - A330 DUAL ENGINE FLAME OUT

OUR REF: SE 999.0069/JS dated 09 JUNE 2006

CLASSIFICATION: INCIDENT - ADVICE (FLIGHT OPERATIONS)

REFERENCE
- OIT SE 999.0067/06/JS dated 02 JUNE 2006

1. PURPOSE

The purpose of OIT/FOT is to provide latest update and to provide operational
recommendations on the dual engine flame out event reported through
OIT ref. SE 999.0067/06/JS dated 02 JUNE 2006.

2. EVENT DESCRIPTION

On 1 June 2006 an A330-200 aircraft, equipped with General Electric (GE) CF6-80E1
engines, experienced a dual engine flame out during descent around flight level 200.
Both engines quickly recovered and a safe landing was performed.

3. INVESTIGATION STATUS

The investigation into this event is led by the Investigation Authorities with assistance from
Airbus. The investigation is still in its early stages, however, DFDR preliminary analysis has
shown that:
- During descent, while engines started to accelerate for aircraft altitude capture, both engines
flamed out simultaneously.
- Both engines automatically relit after flame out, and recovered within approximately 45 seconds.
- Engine Anti Ice had been selected ON during the descent, and Wing Anti Ice had been
selected ON shortly prior to the event.
- Aircraft systems behavior was normal including automatic RAT extension.

Boroscope inspections have been performed on both engines without significant findings.

Based on the above, the initial Airbus/GE view is that this event is similar to other power loss
events at altitudes above 10 000 ft attributed to inclement weather as experienced on CF6-80
engines installed on various aircraft types.

The aircraft returned to service on 7 June 06.

4. OPERATIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS

Waiting for final investigation results, in order to increase the fuel/air ratio in the engine so as
to mitigate the possibility of experiencing an engine flame out, the following provisional
procedure is recommended:

? If inclement weather/icing conditions are expected at any time during descent or if convective activity is identified by the weather radar in the vicinity of the aircraft flight path:


At top of descent:

- ENG ANTI ICE__ON
- WING ANTI ICE_..ON
- PACK FLOW___HI

Below 10000 feet :
Resume normal anti ice and pack flow operation according to weather conditions.

Note that the fuel consumption and the idle thrust will slightly increase when selecting ENG ANTI ICE_ON, WING ANTI ICE_ON, and PACK FLOW_HI.

Final operational recommendations will be implemented in the FCOM/QRH via OEB or TR.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9029 posts, RR: 75
Reply 12, posted (7 years 2 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 21953 times:

Quoting Kaitak (Reply 1):
I know many airlines, among them our own Aer Lingus, have been operating GE powered A330s for a lot longer than CI and have never experienced a similar problem.

Should have added, this engine type has had similar problems on other airframes in heavy rain.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9625 posts, RR: 68
Reply 13, posted (7 years 2 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 21937 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Reminds me of when Cathay Pacific and Dragonair had to ground their A330 fleets when the Rolls Royce engines kept shutting down.

User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9625 posts, RR: 68
Reply 14, posted (7 years 2 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 21836 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Tell you what, Zeke? That both Cathay Pacific and Dragonair grounded their A330 fleets in 1997? Because of multiple in-flight shut downs? I already did tell you that, see Reply 13.

You fly for Cathay Pacific? Ask someone in your office, I'm sure they can tell you all about it.


User currently offlineTrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4763 posts, RR: 14
Reply 15, posted (7 years 2 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 21602 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 13):
Reminds me of when Cathay Pacific and Dragonair had to ground their A330 fleets when the Rolls Royce engines kept shutting down.

http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/frnews/FR970601.htm


User currently offlineQantas744ER From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1288 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (7 years 2 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 21382 times:

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 15):
Tell you what, Zeke? That both Cathay Pacific and Dragonair grounded their A330 fleets in 1997? Because of multiple in-flight shut downs? I already did tell you that, see Reply 13.

You fly for Cathay Pacific? Ask someone in your office, I'm sure they can tell you all about it.

Dont flame me please, but arent u talking about the gear related problem that grounded all 340's 330's ???

Cheers



Happiness is V1 in Lagos
User currently offlineYOWza From Canada, joined Jul 2005, 4878 posts, RR: 15
Reply 17, posted (7 years 2 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 21082 times:

Quoting QatarA340 (Reply 2):
Didnt QR experience a similar situation with their double flame-out on their then brand-new A332 on Shanghi last year?
I believe it also has GE engines.

Yes a QR 330, A7-ACJ experienced a dual flameout last year operating Shanghai-Doha on 01.06.06. The pilots were able to restart the engines and continue on without incident to DOH.

This is the bird although I beleive it was wearing the Asian Games livbery when the incident occurred.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ian Heald



YOWza



12A whenever possible.
User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9029 posts, RR: 75
Reply 18, posted (7 years 2 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 20970 times:

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 15):
That both Cathay Pacific and Dragonair grounded their A330 fleets in 1997?

Nope, just engines effected in the A/D, it was a gearbox problem that needed to be fixed. The AD is still available on the internet if you want to have a look at it.

Went through a similar process last year on the 777 fleet, 2-3 aircraft out of service at a time.

Quoting Trex8 (Reply 16):
http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/frnews/FR970601.htm

The article is not factually correct. We actually cross hired Garuda 330s during the period as well, which were also RR powered.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9625 posts, RR: 68
Reply 19, posted (7 years 2 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 20763 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

So, you are saying that the grounding never happened? That they didn't shut the whole fleet down?

Typical. Ignore the facts and substitute your own. And the disturbing part is people will believe you. Why, because you are a pilot.

If anyone wants to know the facts you can read more here:

http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/frnews/FR970601.htm

http://www.yearbook.gov.hk/1997/cal/ecal5.htm

http://www.kls2.com/cgi-bin/arcfetch...%24lpd@chronicle.concentric.net%3E

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlConte...=/archive/1997/05/28/crolls28.html

Your spin is absurd.


User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9029 posts, RR: 75
Reply 20, posted (7 years 2 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 20608 times:

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 20):
Typical. Ignore the facts and substitute your own. And the disturbing part is people will believe you. Why, because you are a pilot.

I was flying them at the time, I think I should know !!!



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9625 posts, RR: 68
Reply 21, posted (7 years 2 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 20466 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Ah. Well I guess we will ignore major news reports, that some might, pathetically, label as anti-Airbus, and go with your word instead.

The thing is, I can't find any stories retracting or correcting what was reported. I would hope that companies like Rolls Royce and Cathay Pacific would be worried about any bad press, but if you say it never happened, it never happened.

We should alert Guy Norris, too. He in detail about the incidents in his excellent book, Airbus A340 and A330 (Jetliner History).


User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9029 posts, RR: 75
Reply 22, posted (7 years 2 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 19853 times:

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 22):
Ah. Well I guess we will ignore major news reports, that some might, pathetically, label as anti-Airbus, and go with your word instead.

Not at all, I clearly said that the engines effected by the AD were taken out of service, and fixed, and we used Garuda A330s with the same RR engines as interim lift. AFAIK CX/KA now has the world largest fleet of 330s, if they were as troublesome as your are trying to infer, why did we buy another 35 ?

This does not detract from the fact that the RR shutdowns were due to a gearbox problem that could be physically inspected, as the problem was identified after the KA diversion into Clarke. The GE problem seem to be a occurring at times of high bleed demand, in heavy rain, at flight idle, but no physical evidence is available to put a finger on the root cause.

I don't see either incidents being "anti-airbus", they are powerplant related issues that no doubt will be sorted out. The same GE engine series have had similar problems on Boeing aircraft, and other GE series have had similar problems on the CRJ, so the airframe manufacturer does not seem to be the common link here.

All I do see you doing is trying to link a RR gearbox problem that was identified in a RR AD about a decade ago, which has been fixed for a long time now, to a GE engine problem, and then trying to infer its an airframe problem.

I cannot work out your convoluted way of trying to bash airbus.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9625 posts, RR: 68
Reply 23, posted (7 years 2 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 19644 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

I'm not trying to bash Airbus. Did Airbus make the engines?

All I said was it reminded me of the problem, thats all. The problem was solved in short order, without any long term affects, and I'm sure the same will be done for this GE problem.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 23):
I cannot work out your convoluted way of trying to bash airbus.

That's because it isn't happening. You can't work out something that doesn't exist.


User currently onlineMolykote From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 1340 posts, RR: 29
Reply 24, posted (7 years 2 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 18038 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting EDDB (Reply 4):
Todays engines are controlled by a computer called FADEC which is attached to the engine with all the other accessories (accessory gear box), and FADEC gets its commands from the primary flight computers! Since we all know that computers need to be programmed and human beings do make mistakes, things like the above can happen and do happen, or as an Airbus chief technician once said:"Bullshit in, bullshit out..."
I just hope things like this wont happen while crossing the atlantic or pacific or on airway L888 over central asia....

I'd like to clarify a misue of terminology here that (as a propulsion engineer) is a pet peeve of mine:

There is no component (on any engine I have worked with from GE/RR/PW) called a "FADEC".

FADEC (Full Authority Digital Engine Control) is a design architecture by which engines are governed and controlled by a modern digital/electronic computer system (rather than a hydromechanical computer as has been used in the past).

If I could revise the other user's post above, I would state that "Modern jet engines use a FADEC control system architecture. At the heart of this control system is the EEC/ECU, which is the main computer responsible for the processing of input parameters as well as the resulting output/actuation commands directed to other control system components". (Perhaps I could phrase this slightly better but for the sake of illustrating the misue of the "FADEC" terminology I believe this will suffice).

Some people (even those in the aviation profession) improperly refer to the EEC or ECU as "the FADEC".
i.e "We changed the FADEC and the problem went away."

Here are some engine examples where the gap was bridged between hydromechanical and digital engine control:

- The RB211-535E4 (757) had a supervisory EEC but as this component served a "supervisory" function the engine was not "Full Authority Digital".

- The CF6-80C2 (767_could be had with either the FADEC control system architecture or the older MEC/PMC control system on an otherwise identical engine.

- The CFM56 (737) initially existed as an MEC/PMC design but the later -5 and -7 variants were adapted to a FADEC control system architecture (in addition to many other changes being made for later CFM56 models).



Speedtape - The asprin of aviation!
25 Trex8 : does a "transient" shut down count as an engine shut down for etops qualification??? does CI do etops???
26 Zeke : I think they take some of their 330 aircraft to Australia, which would partially be ETOPS.
27 Boo25 : Hope they get these problems diagnosed/sorted fast - not a good prospect on a twin! Am i right in thinking that some 777's had a similar problem in re
28 Post contains images DCrawley : "This forum is as good as you make it. Never post a message in anger. Take the high road and others will follow." ::edited for language::[Edited 2007
29 Post contains links DarkBlue : http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2007/06/28/2003367145 "The situation, however, was unknown to the flight crew as well as passengers fo
30 YOWza : " target=_blank>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlConte....html None of these are reliable sources. All but the Telegraph are littered with spelling and
31 Wrldwndrer : There's a number of possible failure modes that can lead to engine flameout (that's why auto-relight logic is a fundamental function of every FADEC).
32 FlyLKU : ...or someone shut them off. Pilots and visitors to the cockpit have been known to do some crazy things. Also, what about those guys who took the CRJ
33 Skyweasy82 : Mr. molykote the GE CF-34-8C series has a FADEC. That is why you will get EICAS msgs such as " R FADEC FAULT 1 or 2". It is on the CRJ-700/900. If you
34 DarkBlue : As I said before, the flame-out was not due to an issue with the software. It was an operability issue that occurs during inclement weather. All CF6-
35 Molykote : Clearly I was mistaken. Although I did disclaim my post as below, I can see how my initial comments may have appeared a bit brash. Unfortunately I ha
36 Celestar : Read further article update this week on locat Taiwan newspaper. " The incident of this A330 happened by mid May time frame this year. Till now, there
37 Trex8 : CI planes use the CF6-80E1-A4, BR the higher thrust A3. The A3 and A4 had been certified on the A332 but not the A333 when CI selected it. Till CIs or
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...
Has Anyone Experienced Engine Shut-down In Flight posted Tue May 16 2006 17:11:38 by Redcordes
New China Airlines A330 Cabin? posted Tue Jan 4 2005 21:07:12 by Jourdan747
China Airlines A330-300 posted Tue Jun 29 2004 18:00:08 by IWW
China Airlines A330 posted Sun May 23 2004 20:29:55 by AF Cabin Crew
About China Airlines's A330 posted Thu May 20 2004 06:51:50 by 9V-SVC
China Airlines A330-200 Rare Shot posted Mon May 19 2003 09:02:11 by Airmale
Qantas 737, Inflight Engine Shut Down! posted Thu Jan 24 2002 01:36:39 by TAA_Airbus
China Airlines Could Shut Down By October 1 posted Sun May 26 2002 23:39:00 by Jiml1126
DUO Airlines Shut Down? posted Sat May 1 2004 04:45:39 by King penguin
Airlines That Both Fly The A330-200 And 300 posted Sat Jul 5 2003 17:53:32 by Hoons90