Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
AF A320 Dual Engine Stall / JAA-FAA A320 Directive  
User currently offlineFlyinTLow From Germany, joined Oct 2004, 524 posts, RR: 0
Posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 11812 times:

sorry if this has been posted before, couldn't find anything through the search:

AirDisaster.com:

Quote:
Warning issued to airlines flying Airbuses
The Dominion Post

An emergency safety directive has been issued to airlines using twin-engine Airbus A320s after both engines on one stalled over the Mediterranean, just 18 days after an Air New Zealand A320 crashed killing all seven on board.

However, an Air New Zealand spokesman said its A320s, including the one that crashed, are equipped with rival International Aero Engine V2500s plant.

The directive from European and United States aviation authorities, comes as mystery continues as to the cause of the Air New Zealand crash off the coast of southern France.

Five New Zealanders and two Germans died in the November 28 crash during a test flight.

On December 14, an Air France Airbus A321 a stretched version of the A320 suffered a double engine stall as it climbed out of Tunisia, bound for Paris.

Passengers heard loud bangs from both of its CFM International 56 engines and the stalling occurred as pilots eased back on power.

The engines are designed to not close down on stalling and power was quickly resumed. The aircraft made a safe emergency landing.

The safety directive calls for airlines with about 1500 Airbuses to urgently check and repair high-pressure compressor fans on CFM 56s on A318s, A319s, A320s and A321s.

European authorities said that since April last year, six different engines used by three operators had stalled. These were followed by the Air France incident.

American authorities warned such stalling problems "could prevent continued safe flight or landing".

Meanwhile, on January 13 the French crash authority, the Bureau d'Enquetes et d'Analyses (BEA), will hold a Paris meeting in a bid to move the Air New Zealand investigation forward.

Aviation sources say it is coming under pressure to come up with an explanation as the A320 is a European and North American commuter workhorse. Concern was already mounting following an October incident with a Qantas Airbus A330 that lost altitude after going into a dive, injuring 40.

A safety directive on software was issued for A320s last month.

The Air New Zealand plane plunged into the sea without issuing a distress call. Six of the seven bodies have been recovered but are still undergoing dna testing for identification.




Does anybody know more about this? About the dual engine stall and about the safety directive?

Cheers,
Thilo


- When dreams take flight, follow them -
18 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 11784 times:

Quoting FlyinTLow (Thread starter):
Does anybody know more about this? About the dual engine stall and about the safety directive?

The quote you provide is somewhat in error. The AD applies to CFM56 series powered aircraft not to just the 320.
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...BEE5086257530004EC0A4?OpenDocument
It only applies where both installed engines have a greater than 80C deterioration of the EGT margins.

[Edited 2009-01-08 04:03:47]

[Edited 2009-01-08 04:05:16]

User currently offlineBennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7693 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 11711 times:

The link to the A330 is not completely clear.

"airlines using twin-engine Airbus A320s". What other sort of A320's are there.


User currently offlineAC320tech From Canada, joined Jul 2006, 197 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 11163 times:

What's interesting about the XL Germany 320 incident is that it is now being considered a crime scene, and the wreckage is in tiny pieces. If the engines stalled, you would think the pieces left behind would be bigger, like Air Florida 90 (even though QH90 stalled), as the plane would glide, not plunge.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4778986a11.html


User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6960 posts, RR: 46
Reply 4, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 11055 times:



Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 1):
The AD applies to CFM56 series powered aircraft not to just the 320.

It seems to be limited to those variants of the CFM56 variants on the A320 series. Since all 737's except the Jurassics use CFM56's as well, if they were affected it seems that the AD would at least mention them, but it doesn't. What is the difference besides fan diameter between them; or is the larger fan diameter at the root of this problem?



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 11024 times:



Quoting SEPilot (Reply 4):
It seems to be limited to those variants of the CFM56 variants on the A320 series. Since all 737's except the Jurassics use CFM56's as well, if they were affected it seems that the AD would at least mention them, but it doesn't. What is the difference besides fan diameter between them; or is the larger fan diameter at the root of this problem?

My point was the AD is for the CFM, not for the A320 series. If the AD was for a specific aircraft type it would say just that.


User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6960 posts, RR: 46
Reply 6, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 10918 times:



Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 5):
My point was the AD is for the CFM, not for the A320 series. If the AD was for a specific aircraft type it would say just that.

I realize that. My point is that it seems to be only the variants of the CFM-56 that are used on the A320, and I was wondering why other variations (such as those used on the 737) do not seem to be affected, and whether it was related to fan diameter.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9156 posts, RR: 76
Reply 7, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 10807 times:



Quoting SEPilot (Reply 6):

The FAA AD did not explain the issue as well as the EASA one.

"Applicability: A318-111, A318-112, A319-111, A319-112, A319-115, A320-214, A320-215, A320-216, A321-111, A321-112, A321-211, A321-212, and A321-213 aircraft models, all serial numbers with CFM56-5B engines installed.

Reason: Several in service occurrences of HPC stalls have been reported by operators of Airbus aircraft fitted with CFM 56-5B engines since January 2007. Root cause is highly deteriorated HPCs. To improve operability and maintainability CFM released ECU software 5BQ in January 2007 which features 2 degrees additional Variable Stator Vanes closure in the low power region to increase the stall margin. This 5BQ software introduction has reduced the frequency of stalls, however since April 2008, 6 different engines with 5BQ software have experienced stalls at 3 different operators.

On 15 December a CFM56-5B powered A321 experienced stalls on both engines during the same flight. This event was caused by a high level of HPC deterioration.

Stalls on both engines during flight can cause a dual IFSD.

AD 2008-0227-E has been issued, applicable to CFM56-5B engines, to require for aircraft with both engines indicating more than 80 degree Celsius (°C) of Exhaust Gas Temperature (EGT) margin deterioration, one of the engines to be replaced.

Further to additional investigations done by Airbus, it has been determined necessary to mandate additional aircraft level requirements for aircraft with both engines indicating an EGT margin deterioration above 75°C."

It would appear that operators want to leave the engines on the wing longer, and asked CFM to get a little more life out of them, CFM came out with the 5BQ software version. It would appear that operators were just doing a software update on the engine and not look at the level of deterioration of the high pressure compressor, the software update does not appear to be able to cope with a lot of HPC deterioration.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6960 posts, RR: 46
Reply 8, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 10648 times:



Quoting Zeke (Reply 7):
The FAA AD did not explain the issue as well as the EASA one.

Thanks for the info, but I still don't understand why it applied to CFM-56's on A320's but not on 737's.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 9, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 10633 times:



Quoting SEPilot (Reply 8):
Thanks for the info, but I still don't understand why it applied to CFM-56's on A320's but not on 737's.

The -5 and -7 have different fans, and hence almost certainly have different compressor scheduling. It may be that whatever allows a -5 to surge when you've still got EGT margin isn't outside the envelope on a -7.

You can be certain that CFM is checking that right now to make sure they don't have a problem on other models, if they haven't already.

Tom.


User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6960 posts, RR: 46
Reply 10, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 10498 times:



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 9):
The -5 and -7 have different fans, and hence almost certainly have different compressor scheduling. It may be that whatever allows a -5 to surge when you've still got EGT margin isn't outside the envelope on a -7.

I suspected as much; thanks for the info. My interpretation is that there still ain't no free lunch; the larger diameter fan gives you better efficiency but at the cost of decreased margins elsewhere. One of the unavoidable tradeoffs in engine design.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 11, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 10480 times:



Quoting SEPilot (Reply 10):
My interpretation is that there still ain't no free lunch; the larger diameter fan gives you better efficiency but at the cost of decreased margins elsewhere. One of the unavoidable tradeoffs in engine design.

That's my understanding too. If there are no core changes in the -5, then they must be running the turbines harder to drive the bigger fan, which means they must run the compressor harder to feed the turbines. Normally, EGT is a good indicator of engine health but it seems like the -5 may be in a semi unique situation where the compressor can degrade to the point of stalling fairly early in the EGT margin dropoff.

Tom.


User currently offlineFrancoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3790 posts, RR: 11
Reply 12, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 10336 times:



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 11):
the -5 may be in a semi unique situation where the compressor can degrade to the point of stalling fairly early in the EGT margin dropoff.

Or could it be that said EGT dropoff margin has been stretched a bit too far due to operator demanding to keep their engines on-wing longer...?



Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 13, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 10184 times:



Quoting Francoflier (Reply 12):

Or could it be that said EGT dropoff margin has been stretched a bit too far due to operator demanding to keep their engines on-wing longer...?

Could be...I'm not sure what the critical EGT value is driven by on the -5...could be turbine inlet temperature, could be compressor degradation. It looks like maybe they picked the wrong end-point.

Tom.


User currently offlineFrancoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3790 posts, RR: 11
Reply 14, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 10142 times:



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 13):
It looks like maybe they picked the wrong end-point.

Agreed.

I wonder if that degradation margin has been set all along or has been extended from a lower initial value following on wing engine monitoring with operators.



Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
User currently offlinePhatty3374 From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 136 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 9857 times:

I know this is completely unrelated to the problems discussed in this thread, but as I was browsing the Tech Ops forum topics, I found this one somewhat ironic considering the US A320 incident. Of course the causes are absolutely unassociated, but I thought it was interesting considering both incidents involved dual engine problems. No?

User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9156 posts, RR: 76
Reply 16, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 9853 times:



Quoting Phatty3374 (Reply 15):
Of course the causes are absolutely unassociated, but I thought it was interesting considering both incidents involved dual engine problems.

Yes no doubt a new AD only applicable to A320 series aircraft with CFM56-5B4/P engines installed asking for the and inspection and removal of all Canadian Geese from the CFM56-5B4/P engines before further flight.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineJetlife2 From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 221 posts, RR: 25
Reply 17, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 9834 times:



Quoting Zeke (Reply 16):
....asking for the and inspection and removal of all Canadian Geese from the CFM56-5B4/P engines before further flight.

 laughing 


User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6960 posts, RR: 46
Reply 18, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 9538 times:



Quoting Zeke (Reply 16):

Yes no doubt a new AD only applicable to A320 series aircraft with CFM56-5B4/P engines installed asking for the and inspection and removal of all Canadian Geese from the CFM56-5B4/P engines before further flight.

Excellent idea; how about adding provisions for removing them in flight? Better yet, how about equipping the planes with nose guns to shoot the bloomin' things down?



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic AF A320 Dual Engine Stall / JAA-FAA A320 Directive
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Dual Main Gear On A320 posted Wed Aug 1 2007 07:44:54 by JoePatroni
Engine Stall posted Fri Aug 6 2004 22:33:22 by T1210s
JAA/FAA License Conversion Stuff posted Sat Jun 5 2004 20:58:57 by Dufo
Dual Engine Failure On Twins And Fly-by-wire posted Sat Oct 25 2003 09:46:01 by Artsyman
JQ A320's - Engine Noise On Approach posted Sun Aug 3 2008 04:33:25 by TN486
A320 Engine Options- Does It Effect Pilots? posted Sat Mar 22 2008 19:47:50 by SXDFC
A320-which Engine Choice Is More Popular? posted Thu May 24 2007 05:46:09 by KELPkid
A320 Losses Engine Cowlings During Takeoff? posted Thu May 13 2004 00:54:06 by Mr Spaceman
A320 Series Single Engine TAS posted Thu Feb 19 2004 14:02:56 by Zeke
A320 Engine Cowling Question posted Fri May 2 2003 06:23:05 by UALPHLCS
Dual Engine Rollback posted Mon Feb 15 2010 12:56:14 by kimon
Engine Stall posted Fri Aug 6 2004 22:33:22 by T1210s
JAA/FAA License Conversion Stuff posted Sat Jun 5 2004 20:58:57 by Dufo
Dual Engine Failure On Twins And Fly-by-wire posted Sat Oct 25 2003 09:46:01 by Artsyman
B737 & A320 Replacement Engine (For New Aircraft) posted Fri Nov 21 2008 15:39:55 by Dkramer7
JQ A320's - Engine Noise On Approach posted Sun Aug 3 2008 04:33:25 by TN486
A320 Engine Options- Does It Effect Pilots? posted Sat Mar 22 2008 19:47:50 by SXDFC
A320-which Engine Choice Is More Popular? posted Thu May 24 2007 05:46:09 by KELPkid
A320 Losses Engine Cowlings During Takeoff? posted Thu May 13 2004 00:54:06 by Mr Spaceman

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format