Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Air Terror For 300 Aboard A330  
User currently offlineKrisworldB777 From Australia, joined Nov 2000, 570 posts, RR: 3
Posted (12 years 11 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2097 times:

LAJES, Azores Islands -- Investigators were trying to figure out why an airliner with more than 300 aboard was forced to make an emergency landing without power.

The "miracle" landing by the charter jet bound from Toronto to Lisbon left 50 passengers injured. Passengers were screaming as the Air Transat plane hit the runway, bursting its tyres and spilling fuel.

The plane had glided for 18 minutes after losing engine power on Friday.

"Only the pilot's skill prevented a tragedy," Alfredo Cruz, a commander at Lajes Field, a U.S. Air Force base on the island, told the Portuguese news agency Lusa, according to The Associated Press.

Passengers put on life vests and were expecting the plane to ditch in the ocean as it descended rapidly and the pilot struggled for control.

Aviation officials speculated that the Airbus A330 may have begun leaking fuel about 65 miles off Terciera Island, one of nine islands in the Portuguese Azores chain about 900 miles from Portugal.

Portuguese aviation investigators arrived at the island airport on Saturday. Canada's Transport Ministry and Transportation Safety Board are also participating in the investigation.

Passengers described the panic that swept through the cabin during the landing.

"People panicked and screamed. We lost altitude quickly and the plane depressurised and jerked about," the AP quoted passenger Joao Gaspar as saying.

Renato Marcelino described the emergency landing as "brutal ... horrible … everything you could imagine," Reuters reported.

Marcelino said many passengers began shouting and praying as the plane lost altitude.

"We all got in position to crash, the attendants began to shout, 'Hold on' and things like that. (Then) people at the windows began to say, 'Land, we see land.' It was the base."

Daniel Rodrigues of Toronto described the flight attendants as "hysterical."

"One of them was swearing, and the one making the announcement that we had to make an emergency landing sounded very scared," Reuters quoted him as saying. "Once people heard her voice, all the old people started praying."


***
The aircraft involved was an Airbus 330-200

35 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineTwotterwrench From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (12 years 11 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 1734 times:

If it's not Boeing, I'm not going!

User currently offlineMatt D From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9502 posts, RR: 47
Reply 2, posted (12 years 11 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 1714 times:

Can you imagine enduring an ordeal like this, survive the impact in the ocean, only to be devoured by a shark after your raft capsizes?

User currently offlineDelta-flyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 2676 posts, RR: 7
Reply 3, posted (12 years 11 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 1704 times:

Well, Matt, at least our relatives can sue!

Pete


User currently offlineCYKA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (12 years 11 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 1692 times:

Talk about unpreffesional(sp?) flight attendants. I think the media is blowing the whole thing out of proportion. There was nothing miraculous about the landing in my opinion, gliding for 18 minutes from 30 000 feet isin't that long.

User currently offlineDELL_dude From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (12 years 11 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 1673 times:

"If it's not Boeing, I'm not going!" - I like that quote

User currently offlineCritter592 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (12 years 11 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 1658 times:

Oh, Come on guys, This could very well easily happen on a Boeing Aircraft (In Fact it has before on a 767) Yeah, The engine(s) were/was restarted. but still. I wish you people would stop bashing Airbus, I like Boeing too. But I also like Airbus... Two Quality Planemakers in two different worlds. I LOVE EM BOTH.

User currently offlineMark_D. From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 1447 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (12 years 11 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 1638 times:

CYKA aw c'mon, don't be making like "Talk about an unprofessional (sp!) CYKA", with disses like these. Anyway a lot of the news stories are interesting, Portuguese ones included. Here's one y'might want to have a quick look at

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/national/010825/666620.html


User currently offlineAmerica West From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (12 years 11 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 1614 times:

Critter592,

Well said.

"One of them was swearing, and the one making the announcement that we had to make an emergency landing sounded very scared," Reuters quoted him as saying. "Once people heard her voice, all the old people started praying."

That is crazy!! Swearing? Now that is very unprofessional. Flight Attendants have the right to be scared just like everybody else, but swearing and screaming is not going to help the situation. Their job is to keep everyone calm and prepare them for what might happen next. You can't keep everyone calm if you aren't calm yourself.






User currently offlineDeltaAir From United States of America, joined May 1999, 1094 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (12 years 11 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 1604 times:

The incident sounds a little bit more serious from passenger accounts then what was first thought. An A330 just doesn't run out of fuel unless it was losing fuel or wasn't loaded with the correct amount in the first place. I think it is too early to tell what really happened with all the differing opinions coming out from passengers. What I don't understand is if the aircraft was gliding for only 10-35 minutes, why was there a worry about ditching? Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't most airplanes have a significant gliding capability, especially without fuel?

User currently offlineSonic99 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (12 years 11 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 1598 times:

The one thing that intrigues me about this article is inconsistency in the story. I don't mean to be picky or anything, but the story is filled with holes.

Example:

The "miracle" landing by the charter jet bound from Toronto to Lisbon left 50 passengers injured. Passengers were screaming as the Air Transat plane hit the runway, bursting its tyres and spilling fuel.
-> This clearly indicates that fuel remained in the tanks...


The plane had glided for 18 minutes after losing engine power
-> Wouldn't this denote some sort of engine failure?

... the Airbus A330 ... begun leaking fuel about 65 miles off Terciera Island
-> All other reports that I've read indicated a loss of fuel and that the tanks were dry.


If the tanks were dry, then how would this a/c "spill fuel" on landing, moreover, if there was fuel in the tanks then why would there be an engine failure? Could this indicate some other problem with fuel lines or the fuel feed to the engines?

I'd be interested to know how much fuel remained onboard after the landing.


BTW: "If it's not Boeing, I'm not going".....

An Air Canada 767 completely ran dry of fuel on a flight from Montreal to Vancouver and the pilot glided the aircraft to an unused airfield near Gimli, Manitoba (north of Winnipeg - which is half way between the departure and destination). The aircraft thus became known as the "Gimli Glider" (C-GAUN). You'll find photos here on Airliners.net ... more info on that at:
http://www.frontier.net/~wadenelson/successstories/gimli.html

Cheers,

Stephan


User currently offlineJuul From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (12 years 11 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1520 times:

Twotter and DELL,

GET A LIFE!!!!!!!


User currently offlineGOT From Sweden, joined Dec 2000, 1912 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (12 years 11 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 1439 times:

Unprofessional FA is the last thing you should hace onboard an airliner. It's in cases like this that they are rally needed.

GOT



Just like birdwatching - without having to be so damned quiet!
User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (12 years 11 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 1443 times:

Just to clear things up, the Gimli Glider incident happened because not enough fuel was loaded (Canada was going metric at the time). In this incident, it seems an uncommanded and unstoppable fuel dump was to blame, so it was the aircraft's fault. Still, it seems Canadian pilots know how to glide, so don't worry when flying AC , AT or C3!

User currently offlineSonic99 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (12 years 11 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 1437 times:


777,

Thanks for clearing that up. It wasn't my intention to equate the two mishaps as it may have appeared. Indeed, one ran out of fuel (AC) due to inadequate fuel load, while the AT was losing fuel. My point was that in each case the situation exacted supreme pilot skill in landing aircraft with no thrust - in essence gliding the aircraft to safety - no small feat.

Stephan


User currently offlineDLL10 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (12 years 11 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 1405 times:

I agree with Twotterwrench "If it's not Boeing, I'm not going!".

The 330 has a history of things like this happening. The newer 200s even have an overproportional occurence of braking problems too. Any airline that still orders them must be nuts.

About improfessional F/A's : The worst i have seen are on LTU (and that goes for the last few years only as tehy were a lot better in teh 80s and early 90s). Now they don't even speak english anymore. When they had to abort a takeoff due to the fact that engine number one had just sucked in two large herons, they instructed us to "remain comb". I didn't quite intend to fix my hairline at the time. Also that announcement came in a slightly scared voice, which is not very comforting, considering the fact that it was no real emergency. What would the same flight attendant act like in a really bad situation?! I have had several bad experiences with FA's on LTU. They have significantly reduced their crew training and also their aircraft maintenance.
A while ago thir newest 332 D-ALPA had troouble with the brakes in YYZ. Our pilot didn't even know where in the manual to find the exact description of the gauge that showed unusual readings for the brakes. They had to call in AC staff to reset the gauge. The D-ALPA by the way is still frequently grounded due to brake problems.

I will not fly LTU again unless they get their cabin service, their crew training and their safety strategy back to where it has been.


User currently offlineCYKA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (12 years 11 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 1394 times:

777236ER:

Get you facts straight, the whole problem was set in motion due to a badly soldered fuel sensor in the 767. Read the article, its right there. Talk about sloppy worksmanship.


User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 19
Reply 17, posted (12 years 11 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 1390 times:

Stephan, it is possible to loose fuel after the engines run dry, depending on the construction of the fueltanks.
If the outlet from where fuel is extracted is not in the lowest part of the tank during flight, a change in pitch (such as would typically happen during landing) or a rupture in the tank or a pipe (as might happen during a particularly hard landing, especially if it were a weak joint) could cause spillage of fuel.
Another possibility is that what was described in the press as fuel was actually hydraulics fluid. During a landing hard enough to blow tires, maybe a hydraulic line in the landing gear burst, leading to liquid to end up on the runway.



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineHNL-Jack From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 817 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (12 years 11 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 1374 times:

Now I'm not a commercial pilot, but I receintly flew a major airlines B-747-400 simulator and one of the incidents I encountered was a power loss on all four engines at 37,000 ft. What amazed me was that the airplane continued to fly for many minutes with minimum altitude loss before we restarted the engines. It's my guess this airplane could have stayed aloft considerably longer, but the pilot controled the loss of altitude to land at the airport and he did. Pretty magnificant bit of flying if you ask me.


Grew up in the business and continued the family tradition.
User currently offlineGerardo From Spain, joined May 2000, 3481 posts, RR: 31
Reply 19, posted (12 years 11 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1361 times:

Isn't it amazing? One incident of an A330, and every so called Boeing-fan is happy. Following some immature opinions here, nobody should fly B767 anymore (Lauda Air crash), B747 (TWA), MD11 (SR111) and B737 (rudder problems).

No comments  Smile/happy/getting dizzy



dominguez(dash)online(dot)ch ... Pushing the limits of my equipment
User currently offlineRabenschlag From Germany, joined Oct 2000, 1007 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (12 years 11 months 2 days ago) and read 1353 times:

right gerardo,

i am allways astonished how biased some attitudes are. in psychology this is called motivated reasoning. that is, people recall or use only information that is suitable to bolster their self esteem. what might have hurt them so much?

r.


User currently offlineChepos From Puerto Rico, joined Dec 2000, 6202 posts, RR: 11
Reply 21, posted (12 years 11 months 2 days ago) and read 1346 times:

Anyway it must have been extremelly scarry to be onboard that Air Transat flight that day. Thank God everything came out OK and the people got to land safely.
Chepos
Puerto Rico



Fly the Flag!!!!
User currently offlineSebolino From France, joined May 2001, 3681 posts, RR: 4
Reply 22, posted (12 years 11 months 2 days ago) and read 1330 times:

"If it's not Boeing ..."

Very smart, especially for an airplane technician.
I hope I never enter in a plane that you take care of.


User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (12 years 11 months 2 days ago) and read 1340 times:

With that huge wing and relatively short fuselage, the A330-200 should be a pretty good glider. I've spoken with a Swissair A330 pilot, who told me he thinks it actually has too much wing (it's the same one as on longer and heavier Airbuses), and that a level-pitch descent takes quite a while - passengers generally don't like nose-down descents. But in this case, You'd want all the wing you can get  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

Thankfully, nobody was seriously hurt in this incident. I'm rather curious to find out what was the cause.

Charles


User currently offlineFlashmeister From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 2900 posts, RR: 6
Reply 24, posted (12 years 11 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1303 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The Gimli incident was compunded by the fuel solenoids, true, but the root cause was miscalculations by ground crew which resulted in faulty data to the pilots.

Even without working fuel gauges, you can see how much fuel is in the tank by using a dipstick of sorts, and then calculate how much fuel is on board.

This calculation, however, went awry, and then pilots thought they had more fuel than they really did.


25 Post contains images Gerardo : Rabenschag This might be a possible explanation. Another part in this puzzle is plaine and simple: maturity, or as said in german "gesunder Menschenve
26 Greg : Yes! Yes! Yes! Think of all those lawsuits for trauma!!! (search for the recent settlement for the Delta victim who was traumitized for a million doll
27 King767 : "If it's not Boeing ..." Very smart, especially for an airplane technician. I hope I never enter in a plane that you take care of. I see some have yet
28 Juul : King767, "I see some have yet to understand the definition of a joke. " If you look into the posts made by these two idiots (Twotter and Dell) in the
29 Solnabo : LAUDA AIR, in a 767, 30.000 feet over land with reversin engines!!!!!!! HALLOOOOOOOOOOOOO...........
30 Airlinelover : If it's not Boeing, I'm not going! I second that! Juul- Lay off.. Chris
31 Post contains images FDXmech : The Gimli incident was compounded by the fact that the airplane should never have been released for flight by maintenance nor accepted by the flight c
32 C3000flyboy : Ok, now I know that quite a few of the folks on here are discussing the entire gas no gas topic whilst a few of you have taken on the bit of discussio
33 Boeing in pdx : will the plane be written off?
34 Captaingomes : Well said. In the end, the whole crew did their jobs. The pilots landed safely, and the flight attendants got everybody off safely.
35 Climbout : The pilots really deserve praise for this because they DID bring the plane down in ONE piece. No one was killed or seriously injured, so I think the c
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...
Lufthansa Confirms Order For 10 Airbus A330-300 posted Wed Jul 31 2002 11:48:22 by Vfw614
Air France To Buy 10 A330-300 posted Sun Oct 29 2000 13:26:36 by L'espace18
Air Astana Goes 767 & A330 posted Fri Jan 19 2007 17:28:22 by FCKC
New International Air Policy For Canada posted Wed Oct 25 2006 23:13:22 by DYK
Fly Air Slovakia For The Punjabi Experience! posted Fri Oct 13 2006 20:36:01 by EZYAirbus
China To Open More Air Routes For Olympics posted Tue Aug 22 2006 16:11:26 by GneissGuy
New Air Canada 767-300 Interiors... posted Tue Jun 27 2006 16:46:37 by Dmanmtl
Silk Air Looking For New Aircraft posted Tue Mar 7 2006 21:34:13 by CX747
(ex-Gulf Air) Delta 767-300 Scheduling posted Sun Feb 5 2006 23:34:46 by Thomas_Jaeger
Air Namibia A340-300 - Where From? posted Fri Jan 13 2006 12:55:29 by Ansett767