BelAviaFan
Posts: 96
Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2017 7:32 pm

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Fri Dec 28, 2018 3:20 pm

The aircraft did a test flight today, source of the picture: https://www.aviation24.be/forums/viewto ... 50#p376350

Image
BelAviaFan: Belgian Aviation Fan
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21400
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Fri Dec 28, 2018 3:27 pm

StTim wrote:
My question is did the crew make any plans for diversion during the 40 minutes between flame out and relight?

https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=220016 says:

During the flight, at 01:50 hours (00:50 UTC, December 11) when the airplane was cruising at FL400 over Algeria, engine no. 1 (P&W PW4168A) failed. The crew declared a PAN-PAN and considered a precautionary landing in Djerba (DTTJ). Engine 1 was successfully relighted afterward and the crew decided to continue the flight towards Brussels.

So,based on what ASN says, the answer is yes.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
kalvado
Posts: 2013
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Fri Dec 28, 2018 3:30 pm

Revelation wrote:
StTim wrote:
My question is did the crew make any plans for diversion during the 40 minutes between flame out and relight?

https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=220016 says:

During the flight, at 01:50 hours (00:50 UTC, December 11) when the airplane was cruising at FL400 over Algeria, engine no. 1 (P&W PW4168A) failed. The crew declared a PAN-PAN and considered a precautionary landing in Djerba (DTTJ). Engine 1 was successfully relighted afterward and the crew decided to continue the flight towards Brussels.

So,based on what ASN says, the answer is yes.

Shouldn't engine out on a twin be a mayday?
 
B737MAX
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2018 4:11 pm

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Fri Dec 28, 2018 3:34 pm

kalvado wrote:
Shouldn't engine out on a twin be a mayday?


No.
 
StTim
Posts: 3446
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Fri Dec 28, 2018 3:56 pm

Revelation wrote:
StTim wrote:
My question is did the crew make any plans for diversion during the 40 minutes between flame out and relight?

https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=220016 says:

During the flight, at 01:50 hours (00:50 UTC, December 11) when the airplane was cruising at FL400 over Algeria, engine no. 1 (P&W PW4168A) failed. The crew declared a PAN-PAN and considered a precautionary landing in Djerba (DTTJ). Engine 1 was successfully relighted afterward and the crew decided to continue the flight towards Brussels.

So,based on what ASN says, the answer is yes.


Thanks - I hadn't seen that.
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 6314
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Fri Dec 28, 2018 5:49 pm

Revelation wrote:
madpropsyo wrote:
The law in the USA (CFR 121.565) says that in the event of an engine failure on a twin engine airplane in commercial service, the pilots SHALL land at the nearest suitable airport. Airplane model and manufacturers procedures don’t even play into it, this applies across the board. It isn’t a choice, it isn’t a “well if we get it going again it’ll be ok” decision, it’s an immediate diversion. Because there’s no way to know what is going on, and the other engine could fail as well.

The fact that this crew had an engine failure and elected to continue on with passengers on board for three hours, over a large body of water, is, to me, the most ridiculous thing I’ve heard in a long time. And to top it off the other engine failed later in flight, which is exactly why they are supposed to divert in the first place! They put a lot of people at risk and should not be praised for their decisions.

In viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1411339&start=50#p20959511 we read:

7BOEING7 wrote:
The 737, 757, 767 Engine Fail checklists say PTLANSA (Plan To Land At Nearest Suitable Airport).

The 737, 757, 767 Engine In-Flight Start Checklist reconfigures the aircraft for normal operations and does not say PTLANSA if the relight is successful.

The 737, 757, 767 Engine In-Flight Start Checklist says PTLANSA if relight is not successful.

The 777, 787 have the relight as part of the ENG FAIL checklist and only says PTLANSA if the relight is not successful.

(This is aged information but probably still valid)

I suspect the FAR would support what 7BOEING7 is telling us.

I have read 7BOEING7's posts and can say for sure he's a very experienced pilot.

I think the right way to look at it is an engine failure isn't really a failure till after the relight is not successful.

LewisNEO wrote:
I am thinking straight and clear. I must admit, in the field I've never met someone who is so demonizing to others in discussions. Taking off with one engine, especially during an EFTO, is part of our pilot trainings. I don't fly as a pilot, but I do work as an academic in the relevant safety field.

I don't think I'd go with demonic, I think I'd go with overly pedantic.

The way the post read, one could interpret it as saying twins can take off with a single engine from a standing start rather than V1.

Some times people can't resist the urge to pounce on such ambiguities.

Believe it or not, I may have done so at some point in the past.

And I think it's fair to say that such pedantry is a characteristic of this site.

That's just how things go here.

I've certainly had people pounce on ambiguities in things I've posted here.

I've grown to expect it.


How about he was unclear in his meaning and I simply didn’t realize what he meant. Someone else made a clearer reference to it and I realized that he meant an engine failure at V1. Someone not understanding a comment that isn’t very clear does not make them pedantic.
 
sabenapilot
Posts: 3062
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2000 6:18 pm

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Fri Dec 28, 2018 8:12 pm

zeke wrote:
sabenapilot wrote:
There are in fact often many possible decisions in specific failure cases which are entirely defendable, even very different ones.

Only defendable if they are within the scope of regulations, procedures, and SOP.


IMHO they were, as their flamed out engine was successfully relit.


zeke wrote:
sabenapilot wrote:
Anyway: I take it that even on say the ELEC or HYD ATA simulator revision, right after your first sign of ENG trouble, you simply go for the contaminated fuel procedure, declare full mayday, make use of your captain's prerogative to skip all other further ECAMs and QRH procedures and just land overweight asap, because it could also be contaminated fuel with an all engine flame out pending, right, and that particular QRH procedure says LAND ASAP

You are doing yourself a disservice with coments like that.
A shutdown after takeoff the decision making process is very easy, go back to where you departed from unless a departure alternate was required.


You're not getting the point I tried to make here, (i.e. a LOFT with an engine fail in cruise) but whatever, it's of no importance here really, so I'll just leave it.


zeke wrote:
Icing and fuel contamination would be my thoughts for a shutdown so far into the flight, icing less so at FL400

You're over the Sahara, the world's biggest sand ocean.
Sand in the atmosphere could be another possibility, hence me hinting at AIR polution as yet another very different possibility to consider.


zeke wrote:
The regulations in my view are very clear, they say when an engine has been shutdown in flight on a twin (a binary event) a diversion is required.

Yet it isn't shut down any longer, which stricto sensu mean you no longer fall under the regulations for an engine shut down to start with.
You absolutely want to apply them still, which is perfectly fine, but where does it explicitly say you have to still after successful relight?
It's really down to your supervising authority, your company and then the pilot, in that order, whether or not they accept strategies which allow for such a reading.
If you check previous incidents, you will find clearly not everybody reads the same text the strictest possible way you insist it has to be done.
Binary it only becomes, because somebody else has decided first how to interpret it for you, and then drilled it into the minds of all those under whose supervision they fly.

sabenapilot wrote:
zeke wrote:
Now, the all important question: how do you know it's the FUEL and not the AIR which is contaminated?

Because with volcanic ash you see the glow on the windscreen and the smell comes though the packs.


As said: volcanic ash is just one source of AIR contamination...
Over the sahara, you can have others and that may also explain why they are not so descend and land minded as others may immediately be?
It might make your troubles worse even!
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13988
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Fri Dec 28, 2018 9:10 pm

sabenapilot wrote:
Sand in the atmosphere could be another possibility, hence me hinting at AIR polution as yet another very different possibility to consider.


I have never heard of that at FL400, FL200 sure, maybe.

https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Sand_Storm

sabenapilot wrote:
Yet it isn't shutdown any longer, which thus means you're no longer under the regulations for an engine shut down to start with.


Read the actual wording of the regulation and not what you think it says.

28.2 Engine Failure or Shutdown on Aeroplanes with Two Engines

28.2.1 Following an in-flight engine failure or shutdown on an aeroplane with two engines, the approved procedure is for the PIC to land the aeroplane at the nearest suitable aerodrome.


They had an “in-flight engine shutdown” event, I read that to be a binary state (the QAR would read that as a binary state). In my view it is black and white what the approved EO-OPS procedure is.

I would be more than happy for you to show me a regulation that says something to the effect

Following an in-flight engine failure or shutdown on an aeroplane with two engines, and following a successful relight or restart the approved procedure is for the PIC to land the aeroplane at the destination aerodrome.

I know of nothing like that.

sabenapilot wrote:
If you check previous incidents, you may find an answer as to how they deal with in flight relights.
You'll see not everybody reads it as strict like you do, then.


That alone is not proof of anything as the regulations have and will continue to evolve based upon past events. You need to look at this event based upon the regulations as they stand today, not as they did ten years ago, and not as the maybe in 10 years to the future.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
mcg
Posts: 975
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2003 11:49 am

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Fri Dec 28, 2018 10:07 pm

kalvado wrote:
SEPilot wrote:
7BOEING7 wrote:


The 737, 757, 767 Engine Fail checklists say PTLANSA (Plan To Land At Nearest Suitable Airport).

The 737, 757, 767 Engine In-Flight Start Checklist reconfigures the aircraft for normal operations and does not say PTLANSA if the relight is successful.

The 737, 757, 767 Engine In-Flight Start Checklist says PTLANSA if relight is not successful.

The 777, 787 have the relight as part of the ENG FAIL checklist and only says PTLANSA if the relight is not successful.

(This is aged information but probably still valid)

Let’s examine the situation the pilots were in in sequence.
1. Engine flames out, reason unknown.
2. Engine restart attempted, and is successful.
3. Aircraft is over Algeria, and headed to Europe with suitable landing sites never a long distance away. I do not know this for sure, but I doubt there were very many times that a suitable airport was outside of gliding distance.
4. Both engines are running normally; no long stretches are ahead where there are no diversion possibilities, so the pilots continue on course.
5. No further issues occur with either engine until descent to scheduled destination starts.
6. The other engine then flames out.
7. Restart is attempted several times, finally succeeds.
8. Plane lands at destination with both engines running.

I cannot find any fault with the decisions made by the pilots. The point is that at all times there were diversion possibilities should the problem recur. Had they diverted without any further sign of difficulty they may well have been questioned by management as to why. The situation would have been different had they been about to cross an ocean or other area where the nearest diversion airport was hours away. But they weren’t.

Maybe it is just me... But if you have to consider gliding distance as part of the decision process - you're doing something wrong...


No question, the 'it's ok to keep going cause there are a lot of airports around' argument seems not-so-good to me. I'd say once you an engine stops on twin, the best practice would be to find a suitable airport and land there, even after a successful restart. We can debate whether airports in Algeria are suitable (it would seem the various operations departments inside the Lufthansa group could debate this question), but I don't see how the airplane should just keep truckin' on.
 
smartplane
Posts: 1024
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Fri Dec 28, 2018 10:38 pm

zeke wrote:
Read the actual wording of the regulation and not what you think it says.

28.2 Engine Failure or Shutdown on Aeroplanes with Two Engines

28.2.1 Following an in-flight engine failure or shutdown on an aeroplane with two engines, the approved procedure is for the PIC to land the aeroplane at the nearest suitable aerodrome.


They had an “in-flight engine shutdown” event, I read that to be a binary state (the QAR would read that as a binary state). In my view it is black and white what the approved EO-OPS procedure is.

I would be more than happy for you to show me a regulation that says something to the effect

Following an in-flight engine failure or shutdown on an aeroplane with two engines, and following a successful relight or restart the approved procedure is for the PIC to land the aeroplane at the destination aerodrome.

I know of nothing like that.

sabenapilot wrote:
If you check previous incidents, you may find an answer as to how they deal with in flight relights.
You'll see not everybody reads it as strict like you do, then.


That alone is not proof of anything as the regulations have and will continue to evolve based upon past events. You need to look at this event based upon the regulations as they stand today, not as they did ten years ago, and not as the maybe in 10 years to the future.

Your interpretation is consistent with mine, and the spirit of the rules.

When an engine is shutdown on an ETOPS approved flight, ETOPS is suspended for the balance of that flight.

I thought perhaps a re-start could be viewed as cleaning the slate, but..............

When Thai had multiple in flight shutdowns in the early 00's, though half were re-started in flight, they ALL counted towards possible suspension of ETOPS. Re-starting wasn't viewed as a non-event.

The insurance industry is extremely conservative. If the outcome was different, and a claim was the result, bet they would argue ETOPS rule breach = policy breach = no / diminished cover.

Interesting to see the response of posters here if the airline performing the re-start and flying on to destination was called Lion.
 
BelAviaFan
Posts: 96
Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2017 7:32 pm

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Sat Dec 29, 2018 11:56 am

Contaminated fuel caused the engine problems of Brussels Airlines Airbus A330 OO-SFU, aviation24.be reports
BelAviaFan: Belgian Aviation Fan
 
MalevTU134
Posts: 2188
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 8:04 pm

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Sat Dec 29, 2018 12:09 pm

BelAviaFan wrote:
Contaminated fuel caused the engine problems of Brussels Airlines Airbus A330 OO-SFU, aviation24.be reports

Was it beer?
 
sabenapilot
Posts: 3062
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2000 6:18 pm

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Sat Dec 29, 2018 12:48 pm

zeke wrote:
sabenapilot wrote:
Yet it isn't shutdown any longer, which thus means you're no longer under the regulations for an engine shut down to start with.

Read the actual wording of the regulation and not what you think it says.


I did.
For the 5th time now Zeke, once an engine is relit, you are no longer having an engine shut down, have you? It WAS shut down, but it no longer IS.
Whether you still have to apply the procedure as if it still WAS is not explicitly stated in the regulation itself, is it, and it's not saying you do not have to either: the situation of a relit engine simply is not mentioned in it, so it's is pretty much up to the supervising national authority to decide whether they approve of a company policy to restart and close the diversion book, or not. Clearly here, their authorities seem okay with such an approach as it's not the first time they try a relight and continue well beyond the nearest suitable airport.
Whether or not the previous shut down event still counts towards the quota for ETOPS cerfification is something else, of course.

BTW- the link above refers to the root cause of the initial shutdown and relit as being a non-fuel related 'IT problem' to the engine... the fuel issue upon descend to the other engine was unrelated and may also have developed independant of an immediate diversion as well of course.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 3136
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Sat Dec 29, 2018 1:40 pm

A Delta 767 from Beijing to Seattle on Christmas Eve landed on a western Aleutian island because of engine issues. I have seen no technical details. Anyone know what the issues were?

I dismiss out of hand anyone suggesting 'don't fly this Asian/American/European/Mid-Eastern airline because they are not safe'. But I probably would not book a flight on an airline which contines a long flight after an engine shutdown with unknown cause.

To add a bit of humor, From Seattle to Hawaii you are somewhat in the middle of the flight for about 2 hours, and there is no place to turn back to or alternate sites. Sully, where are you when we need you!
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1750
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Sat Dec 29, 2018 2:04 pm

sabenapilot wrote:
I did.
For the 5th time now Zeke, once an engine is relit, you are no longer having an engine shut down, have you? It WAS shut down, but it no longer IS.

The rule is (from Zekes post):
28.2.1 Following an in-flight engine failure or shutdown on an aeroplane with two engines...
If "following" would end after an engine relit, it would have to be mentioned. Following means at least until landing without explicit termination condition. The wording makes the "land asap" phase indefinitely long after it has been triggered by the starting event "engine failure" imho.
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21400
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Sat Dec 29, 2018 2:08 pm

sabenapilot wrote:
zeke wrote:
sabenapilot wrote:
Yet it isn't shutdown any longer, which thus means you're no longer under the regulations for an engine shut down to start with.

Read the actual wording of the regulation and not what you think it says.

I did.
For the 5th time now Zeke, once an engine is relit, you are no longer having an engine shut down, have you? It WAS shut down, but it no longer IS.

The given wording:

Following an in-flight engine failure or shutdown on an aeroplane with two engines

contradicts your view and supports Zeke's. In fact it seems to be intentionally chosen to avoid the ambiguity you insist is present.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 1766
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Sat Dec 29, 2018 2:57 pm

Revelation wrote:
sabenapilot wrote:
zeke wrote:
Read the actual wording of the regulation and not what you think it says.

For the 5th time now Zeke, once an engine is relit, you are no longer having an engine shut down, have you? It WAS shut down, but it no longer IS.

The given wording:
Following an in-flight engine failure or shutdown on an aeroplane with two engines

contradicts your view and supports Zeke's. In fact it seems to be intentionally chosen to avoid the ambiguity you insist is present.

If you can explain in what circumstances you would consider specifying a procedure to be applied before you suffer an engine flame-out, I might agree it is not ambiguous.
Everything is "following", unless you have a crystal ball.
How's that for pedantry?

Besides, Zeke noted that in his world, the term "failure" was only applicable to engines that would not re-start. Is this just zeke, or do the regulations specify the exact meaning of "failure" as used in this document? For instance "a failed engine is one that will not restart within x minutes, or y attempts to re-light it, or one that re-starts but shows obvious signs of distress". That should cover it, n'est pas? Or do I need to qualify "distress"?

I can only hope that this event is noted by the various regulatory agencies, and the wording is re-written to remove the multiple ambiguity(s) here.

And finally; to all those who used BA36 and /or the second flame-out event as proof that caution was required; this would leave me suggesting that any diversion to an airport in Algeria whilst the first engine was out of the game could well have resulted in losing both engines during such a descent/landing. Continuing the flight for some time whilst endeavouring to re-light the first failure could well be what ultimately saved the day, even though it meant they flew past several diversion options.

Were they right to do what they did?
Ultimately I do not have zeke's qualifications or experience, so I'm quite prepared to have my pitiful offerings shot down.
Nothing to see here; move along please.
 
mm320cap
Posts: 302
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2004 12:35 pm

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Sat Dec 29, 2018 4:07 pm

I’m alarmed that in the past couple of months we now have two instances of crews continuing flights to destination after significant mechanical anomalies (Lion flight prior to accident flight, and now this).

Just had a “discussion” with my FO about a scenario in which we had a B767-300 flame out both engines due to Captain’s flubbing an attempt to balance fuel. The crew got the engines relit, and the Captain wanted to continue to destination. The FO (who I know) demanded they return, so the Captain reluctantly did. My FO didn’t see a problem with continuing to destination. I almost came out of my shoes... where is the fuel burn calculation for gliding to 15,000’, and then climbing back to altitude? Where is the fuel burn calculation for a deployed RAT or HMG?

It seems to me that there is a new sense of taking things too literally and not employing good airmanship. The Lion pilots didn’t land with a stick shaker going off and half the instruments dead because the book didn’t tell them too?????

In this case, a jet engine flamed out because...... they had no idea. I would immediately suspect fuel contamination if there was no other obvious cause. But the point is that you don’t know why. So what ever happened to making the decision that is the safest course of action? It’s just shocking to me that a crew would continue to destination and overly many suitable alternates after an engine flames out for an unknown cause.

Lastly, once again, there is no point in getting bogged down in the minutia of whether an engine “failed” when I flamed out if it is able to be restarted. The checklist that drives a relight attempt is called an “Engine Fail” checklist.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21400
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Sat Dec 29, 2018 4:09 pm

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
Revelation wrote:
sabenapilot wrote:
For the 5th time now Zeke, once an engine is relit, you are no longer having an engine shut down, have you? It WAS shut down, but it no longer IS.

The given wording:
Following an in-flight engine failure or shutdown on an aeroplane with two engines

contradicts your view and supports Zeke's. In fact it seems to be intentionally chosen to avoid the ambiguity you insist is present.

If you can explain in what circumstances you would consider specifying a procedure to be applied before you suffer an engine flame-out, I might agree it is not ambiguous.
Everything is "following", unless you have a crystal ball.
How's that for pedantry?

It isn't ambiguous, it is there to convey sequencing.

"Following an in-flight engine failure or shutdown on an aeroplane with two engines, the approved procedure is for the PIC to land the aeroplane at the nearest suitable aerodrome."

Event 1: An in-flight engine failure or shutdown on an aeroplane with two engines
Event 2: PIC to land the aeroplane at the nearest suitable aerodrome

No mention of a relight preempting event 2.

The words seem to be chosen to force the sequence, IMHO.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
AirlineCritic
Posts: 1648
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 1:07 pm

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Sat Dec 29, 2018 4:31 pm

Revelation wrote:
The given wording:

Following an in-flight engine failure or shutdown on an aeroplane with two engines

contradicts your view and supports Zeke's. In fact it seems to be intentionally chosen to avoid the ambiguity you insist is present.


I agree.
 
User avatar
AirlineCritic
Posts: 1648
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 1:07 pm

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Sat Dec 29, 2018 4:34 pm

mm320cap wrote:
Just had a “discussion” with my FO about a scenario in which we had a B767-300 flame out both engines due to Captain’s flubbing an attempt to balance fuel. The crew got the engines relit, and the Captain wanted to continue to destination.


I'm not arguing with your opinion about what should have happened -- I agree with it as well.

However, I wanted to point out that the "flubbed fuel transfer and flamed out engines" is a slightly different scenario than the one we're dealing with in this thread. First off, obviously having both engines shut down at the same time is ... mind-blowing. Worse than what the Brussels Airline case was. Might want to land just for the sake of underwear change! But, B767 case is also a case where they *knew* the reason for the shutdown. That is better than not knowing. Brussels Airlines pilots must have (or should have) been scared of what they'll encounter. There was no way to know. And they knew they don't know... logic would have called for a landing.

Jari
 
Bradin
Posts: 292
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:12 am

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Sat Dec 29, 2018 5:31 pm

mm320cap wrote:
I’m alarmed that in the past couple of months we now have two instances of crews continuing flights to destination after significant mechanical anomalies (Lion flight prior to accident flight, and now this).

Just had a “discussion” with my FO about a scenario in which we had a B767-300 flame out both engines due to Captain’s flubbing an attempt to balance fuel. The crew got the engines relit, and the Captain wanted to continue to destination. The FO (who I know) demanded they return, so the Captain reluctantly did. My FO didn’t see a problem with continuing to destination. I almost came out of my shoes... where is the fuel burn calculation for gliding to 15,000’, and then climbing back to altitude? Where is the fuel burn calculation for a deployed RAT or HMG?

It seems to me that there is a new sense of taking things too literally and not employing good airmanship. The Lion pilots didn’t land with a stick shaker going off and half the instruments dead because the book didn’t tell them too?????

In this case, a jet engine flamed out because...... they had no idea. I would immediately suspect fuel contamination if there was no other obvious cause. But the point is that you don’t know why. So what ever happened to making the decision that is the safest course of action? It’s just shocking to me that a crew would continue to destination and overly many suitable alternates after an engine flames out for an unknown cause.

Lastly, once again, there is no point in getting bogged down in the minutia of whether an engine “failed” when I flamed out if it is able to be restarted. The checklist that drives a relight attempt is called an “Engine Fail” checklist.


So I am not a pilot, but there's a fuel burn calculation for deploying a RAT? Fuel burn when engines have flamed out? Or is there a standard operating procedure that the average aviation enthusiast is unaware of where the RAT must be deployed upon climbing back up to altitude during a dual engine flame out?
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13988
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Sat Dec 29, 2018 5:47 pm

sabenapilot wrote:
For the 5th time now Zeke, once an engine is relit, you are no longer having an engine shut down, have you? It WAS shut down, but it no longer IS.


I have been listening to what you are saying, I reached out to a few senior trainers at some large EU carriers and they all said the policy is to divert following and engine shutdown. I specifically asked if a relight changes anything, they just said the obvious that having two engines will provide more airports that are suitable, however diverting is still the prescribed course of action.

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
Besides, Zeke noted that in his world, the term "failure" was only applicable to engines that would not re-start. Is this just zeke, or do the regulations specify the exact meaning of "failure" as used in this document?


Failure is more of an engineering term to describe something that was discovered as being broken during inspection, that inspection could be following a shutdown, a crash, or during normal maintenance.

From an operational standpoint the regulators are concerned with shutdowns and keep track of various in flight shutdown rates (IFSD).

IFSD means an engine ceases to function (when the airplane is airborne) and is shut down, whether self-induced, flight-crew initiated or caused by an external influence. Regulators consider IFSD for all causes, such as flameout, internal failure, flight crew initiated shutdown, foreign object ingestion, icing, inability to obtain or control desired thrust or power, and cycling of the start control; however briefly, even if the engine operates normally for the remainder of the flight.

This definition excludes the airborne cessation of the functioning of an engine when immediately followed by an automatic engine relight and when an engine does not achieve desired thrust or power but is not shut down.


SheikhDjibouti wrote:
Continuing the flight for some time whilst endeavouring to re-light the first failure could well be what ultimately saved the day, even though it meant they flew past several diversion options.


It is perfectly acceptable to fly past the nearest airport when single engine. The requirement is to land at the nearest suitable not the nearest available. There is a whole list as to what makes an airport suitable.

They were about 100 nm SSW of DJE, one of the airports the airline operates into when they got the engine right.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
CriticalPoint
Posts: 595
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Sat Dec 29, 2018 6:46 pm

ZEKE it’s time to give up the fight my friend. The REAL pilots and CAs on this sight agree with you. I don’t care why the engine shut down and I don’t care why/if it re-lit I’m getting that airplane on the ground at the next suitable airport.

I don’t disagree with this crew crossing into Europe before the diversion but continuing to BRU was careless and reckless period.

Also those of you talking about ETOPS can stop because this flight was NOT an ETOPS flight. I’m sure they were class 2 for awhile but they were not outside 1 hour of a suitable airport. Just because the aircraft crosses water does not make it ETOPS.
Last edited by CriticalPoint on Sat Dec 29, 2018 6:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
CriticalPoint
Posts: 595
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Sat Dec 29, 2018 6:48 pm

Bradin wrote:
mm320cap wrote:
I’m alarmed that in the past couple of months we now have two instances of crews continuing flights to destination after significant mechanical anomalies (Lion flight prior to accident flight, and now this).

Just had a “discussion” with my FO about a scenario in which we had a B767-300 flame out both engines due to Captain’s flubbing an attempt to balance fuel. The crew got the engines relit, and the Captain wanted to continue to destination. The FO (who I know) demanded they return, so the Captain reluctantly did. My FO didn’t see a problem with continuing to destination. I almost came out of my shoes... where is the fuel burn calculation for gliding to 15,000’, and then climbing back to altitude? Where is the fuel burn calculation for a deployed RAT or HMG?

It seems to me that there is a new sense of taking things too literally and not employing good airmanship. The Lion pilots didn’t land with a stick shaker going off and half the instruments dead because the book didn’t tell them too?????

In this case, a jet engine flamed out because...... they had no idea. I would immediately suspect fuel contamination if there was no other obvious cause. But the point is that you don’t know why. So what ever happened to making the decision that is the safest course of action? It’s just shocking to me that a crew would continue to destination and overly many suitable alternates after an engine flames out for an unknown cause.

Lastly, once again, there is no point in getting bogged down in the minutia of whether an engine “failed” when I flamed out if it is able to be restarted. The checklist that drives a relight attempt is called an “Engine Fail” checklist.


So I am not a pilot, but there's a fuel burn calculation for deploying a RAT? Fuel burn when engines have flamed out? Or is there a standard operating procedure that the average aviation enthusiast is unaware of where the RAT must be deployed upon climbing back up to altitude during a dual engine flame out?


The RAT, if equipped, deploys automatically with a dual engine failure and cannot be re-stowed until in the ground so the extra drag would increase the fuel burn.
 
Bradin
Posts: 292
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:12 am

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Sat Dec 29, 2018 7:03 pm

CriticalPoint wrote:
Bradin wrote:
mm320cap wrote:
I’m alarmed that in the past couple of months we now have two instances of crews continuing flights to destination after significant mechanical anomalies (Lion flight prior to accident flight, and now this).

Just had a “discussion” with my FO about a scenario in which we had a B767-300 flame out both engines due to Captain’s flubbing an attempt to balance fuel. The crew got the engines relit, and the Captain wanted to continue to destination. The FO (who I know) demanded they return, so the Captain reluctantly did. My FO didn’t see a problem with continuing to destination. I almost came out of my shoes... where is the fuel burn calculation for gliding to 15,000’, and then climbing back to altitude? Where is the fuel burn calculation for a deployed RAT or HMG?

It seems to me that there is a new sense of taking things too literally and not employing good airmanship. The Lion pilots didn’t land with a stick shaker going off and half the instruments dead because the book didn’t tell them too?????

In this case, a jet engine flamed out because...... they had no idea. I would immediately suspect fuel contamination if there was no other obvious cause. But the point is that you don’t know why. So what ever happened to making the decision that is the safest course of action? It’s just shocking to me that a crew would continue to destination and overly many suitable alternates after an engine flames out for an unknown cause.

Lastly, once again, there is no point in getting bogged down in the minutia of whether an engine “failed” when I flamed out if it is able to be restarted. The checklist that drives a relight attempt is called an “Engine Fail” checklist.


So I am not a pilot, but there's a fuel burn calculation for deploying a RAT? Fuel burn when engines have flamed out? Or is there a standard operating procedure that the average aviation enthusiast is unaware of where the RAT must be deployed upon climbing back up to altitude during a dual engine flame out?


The RAT, if equipped, deploys automatically with a dual engine failure and cannot be re-stowed until in the ground so the extra drag would increase the fuel burn.


Ahh! Never knew that! Thanks CriticalPoint!
 
CriticalPoint
Posts: 595
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Sat Dec 29, 2018 7:11 pm

Bradin wrote:
CriticalPoint wrote:
Bradin wrote:

So I am not a pilot, but there's a fuel burn calculation for deploying a RAT? Fuel burn when engines have flamed out? Or is there a standard operating procedure that the average aviation enthusiast is unaware of where the RAT must be deployed upon climbing back up to altitude during a dual engine flame out?


The RAT, if equipped, deploys automatically with a dual engine failure and cannot be re-stowed until in the ground so the extra drag would increase the fuel burn.


Ahh! Never knew that! Thanks CriticalPoint!


My pleasure
 
mm320cap
Posts: 302
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2004 12:35 pm

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Sat Dec 29, 2018 7:15 pm

AirlineCritic wrote:
mm320cap wrote:
Just had a “discussion” with my FO about a scenario in which we had a B767-300 flame out both engines due to Captain’s flubbing an attempt to balance fuel. The crew got the engines relit, and the Captain wanted to continue to destination.


I'm not arguing with your opinion about what should have happened -- I agree with it as well.

However, I wanted to point out that the "flubbed fuel transfer and flamed out engines" is a slightly different scenario than the one we're dealing with in this thread. First off, obviously having both engines shut down at the same time is ... mind-blowing. Worse than what the Brussels Airline case was. Might want to land just for the sake of underwear change! But, B767 case is also a case where they *knew* the reason for the shutdown. That is better than not knowing. Brussels Airlines pilots must have (or should have) been scared of what they'll encounter. There was no way to know. And they knew they don't know... logic would have called for a landing.

Jari


Definitely agree they are two different scenarios. Every emergency scenario is, which is why we get paid and why there won’t be pilotless commercial passenger flights anytime soon.

My thoughts in the post are merely to highlight that there seems to be a rise in “press on” tendencies after a SERIOUS emergency situation is encountered. I run my flight deck with the “FAA at the table” mantra in the back of my mind. “Did you follow the SAFEST course of action?”
 
mm320cap
Posts: 302
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2004 12:35 pm

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Sat Dec 29, 2018 7:16 pm

Bradin wrote:
mm320cap wrote:
I’m alarmed that in the past couple of months we now have two instances of crews continuing flights to destination after significant mechanical anomalies (Lion flight prior to accident flight, and now this).

Just had a “discussion” with my FO about a scenario in which we had a B767-300 flame out both engines due to Captain’s flubbing an attempt to balance fuel. The crew got the engines relit, and the Captain wanted to continue to destination. The FO (who I know) demanded they return, so the Captain reluctantly did. My FO didn’t see a problem with continuing to destination. I almost came out of my shoes... where is the fuel burn calculation for gliding to 15,000’, and then climbing back to altitude? Where is the fuel burn calculation for a deployed RAT or HMG?

It seems to me that there is a new sense of taking things too literally and not employing good airmanship. The Lion pilots didn’t land with a stick shaker going off and half the instruments dead because the book didn’t tell them too?????

In this case, a jet engine flamed out because...... they had no idea. I would immediately suspect fuel contamination if there was no other obvious cause. But the point is that you don’t know why. So what ever happened to making the decision that is the safest course of action? It’s just shocking to me that a crew would continue to destination and overly many suitable alternates after an engine flames out for an unknown cause.

Lastly, once again, there is no point in getting bogged down in the minutia of whether an engine “failed” when I flamed out if it is able to be restarted. The checklist that drives a relight attempt is called an “Engine Fail” checklist.


So I am not a pilot, but there's a fuel burn calculation for deploying a RAT? Fuel burn when engines have flamed out? Or is there a standard operating procedure that the average aviation enthusiast is unaware of where the RAT must be deployed upon climbing back up to altitude during a dual engine flame out?


Critical Point answered nicely. Sorry. I should have been more descriptive
 
smartplane
Posts: 1024
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Sat Dec 29, 2018 7:18 pm

CriticalPoint wrote:
Also those of you talking about ETOPS can stop because this flight was NOT an ETOPS flight. I’m sure they were class 2 for awhile but they were not outside 1 hour of a suitable airport. Just because the aircraft crosses water does not make it ETOPS.

I referred to the ETOPS definition and rules, to achieve some clarity in respect to an engine which is subsequently re-started. Seemed unlikely there would be two different versions of aviation best practice, depending whether you are flying over terra firma (continue to destination as if nothing has happened) or water (land at the nearest suitable airport).

This crew did their employer a favour. If it turned out 'pear-shaped', would their employer have supported the decision, or used them as scapegoats? Wonder what conversations took place between the flight crew and management during the flight?
 
CriticalPoint
Posts: 595
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Sat Dec 29, 2018 7:29 pm

smartplane wrote:
CriticalPoint wrote:
Also those of you talking about ETOPS can stop because this flight was NOT an ETOPS flight. I’m sure they were class 2 for awhile but they were not outside 1 hour of a suitable airport. Just because the aircraft crosses water does not make it ETOPS.

I referred to the ETOPS definition and rules, to achieve some clarity in respect to an engine which is subsequently re-started. Seemed unlikely there would be two different versions of aviation best practice, depending whether you are flying over terra firma (continue to destination as if nothing has happened) or water (land at the nearest suitable airport).

This crew did their employer a favour. If it turned out 'pear-shaped', would their employer have supported the decision, or used them as scapegoats? Wonder what conversations took place between the flight crew and management during the flight?


The crew DID NOT due their employer a favor. Jet airways is in an equal amount of trouble as the crew especially if they pressured the crew to continue.
 
User avatar
FredrikHAD
Posts: 436
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2015 9:44 pm

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Sat Dec 29, 2018 10:59 pm

Bradin wrote:
So I am not a pilot, but there's a fuel burn calculation for deploying a RAT? Fuel burn when engines have flamed out? Or is there a standard operating procedure that the average aviation enthusiast is unaware of where the RAT must be deployed upon climbing back up to altitude during a dual engine flame out?

Fuel burn when engines have flamed out would be very favourable. 0, as a matter of fact. Well, favourable until your speed drops too much or that pesky old planet Earth starts getting too close for comfort. B.t.w., it’s a challenge to climb back to altitude during a dual engine flame out, especially on an A330. Any of the real pilots on here have any experience managing that?
 
MalevTU134
Posts: 2188
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 8:04 pm

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Sat Dec 29, 2018 11:29 pm

CriticalPoint wrote:
smartplane wrote:
CriticalPoint wrote:
Also those of you talking about ETOPS can stop because this flight was NOT an ETOPS flight. I’m sure they were class 2 for awhile but they were not outside 1 hour of a suitable airport. Just because the aircraft crosses water does not make it ETOPS.

I referred to the ETOPS definition and rules, to achieve some clarity in respect to an engine which is subsequently re-started. Seemed unlikely there would be two different versions of aviation best practice, depending whether you are flying over terra firma (continue to destination as if nothing has happened) or water (land at the nearest suitable airport).

This crew did their employer a favour. If it turned out 'pear-shaped', would their employer have supported the decision, or used them as scapegoats? Wonder what conversations took place between the flight crew and management during the flight?


The crew DID NOT due their employer a favor. Jet airways is in an equal amount of trouble as the crew especially if they pressured the crew to continue.

Jet Airways??
 
User avatar
longhauler
Posts: 6322
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:00 am

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Sun Dec 30, 2018 12:03 am

CriticalPoint wrote:
ZEKE it’s time to give up the fight my friend. The REAL pilots and CAs on this sight agree with you. I don’t care why the engine shut down and I don’t care why/if it re-lit I’m getting that airplane on the ground at the next suitable airport.

Hear hear.

It is not hard to tell the transport pilots on this thread from the accountants/operations managers.
Just because I stopped arguing, doesn't mean I think you are right. It just means I gave up!
 
User avatar
longhauler
Posts: 6322
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:00 am

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Sun Dec 30, 2018 12:08 am

mm320cap wrote:
My thoughts in the post are merely to highlight that there seems to be a rise in “press on” tendencies after a SERIOUS emergency situation is encountered. I run my flight deck with the “FAA at the table” mantra in the back of my mind. “Did you follow the SAFEST course of action?”


I chuckled when I read this, as more than once in my career when the F/O asked why I was taking a course of action that may have appeard overly cautious, I replied ... "It's just one less question to answer at the inquest".
Just because I stopped arguing, doesn't mean I think you are right. It just means I gave up!
 
smartplane
Posts: 1024
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Sun Dec 30, 2018 12:20 am

longhauler wrote:
mm320cap wrote:
My thoughts in the post are merely to highlight that there seems to be a rise in “press on” tendencies after a SERIOUS emergency situation is encountered. I run my flight deck with the “FAA at the table” mantra in the back of my mind. “Did you follow the SAFEST course of action?”


I chuckled when I read this, as more than once in my career when the F/O asked why I was taking a course of action that may have appeard overly cautious, I replied ... "It's just one less question to answer at the inquest".

Applause. My kind of pilot. And you are bringing another generation through with the same approach.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13988
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Sun Dec 30, 2018 12:45 am

CriticalPoint wrote:
Also those of you talking about ETOPS can stop because this flight was NOT an ETOPS flight. I’m sure they were class 2 for awhile but they were not outside 1 hour of a suitable airport. Just because the aircraft crosses water does not make it ETOPS.


We run a lot of our flights ETDO even when flying within 60 minutes of a runway that can physically support us.

ETDO/ETOPS does not only just apply over water, for example we run all of our twin engine flights from HKG to Europe under ETDO/ETOPS rules. It is very common to run ETDO/ETOPS over Africa especially at night.

At night in less developed parts of the world like Africa and parts of Asia it is not uncommon to have no ATC, no forecasts, no RFF, or no way to handle the pax or aircraft, or even runway/navaid maintenance.

The factors that make an airport suitable extend well beyond just the physical runway length and width.

ETDO/ETOPS then facilitates routes 24/7 that would otherwise be restricted with operational hours.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
AirKevin
Posts: 506
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2017 2:18 am

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Sun Dec 30, 2018 12:57 am

Bradin wrote:
mm320cap wrote:
I’m alarmed that in the past couple of months we now have two instances of crews continuing flights to destination after significant mechanical anomalies (Lion flight prior to accident flight, and now this).

Just had a “discussion” with my FO about a scenario in which we had a B767-300 flame out both engines due to Captain’s flubbing an attempt to balance fuel. The crew got the engines relit, and the Captain wanted to continue to destination. The FO (who I know) demanded they return, so the Captain reluctantly did. My FO didn’t see a problem with continuing to destination. I almost came out of my shoes... where is the fuel burn calculation for gliding to 15,000’, and then climbing back to altitude? Where is the fuel burn calculation for a deployed RAT or HMG?

It seems to me that there is a new sense of taking things too literally and not employing good airmanship. The Lion pilots didn’t land with a stick shaker going off and half the instruments dead because the book didn’t tell them too?????

In this case, a jet engine flamed out because...... they had no idea. I would immediately suspect fuel contamination if there was no other obvious cause. But the point is that you don’t know why. So what ever happened to making the decision that is the safest course of action? It’s just shocking to me that a crew would continue to destination and overly many suitable alternates after an engine flames out for an unknown cause.

Lastly, once again, there is no point in getting bogged down in the minutia of whether an engine “failed” when I flamed out if it is able to be restarted. The checklist that drives a relight attempt is called an “Engine Fail” checklist.


So I am not a pilot, but there's a fuel burn calculation for deploying a RAT? Fuel burn when engines have flamed out? Or is there a standard operating procedure that the average aviation enthusiast is unaware of where the RAT must be deployed upon climbing back up to altitude during a dual engine flame out?

Most likely no calculations, but that's the point. Generally speaking, you're carrying enough fuel for the trip, plus holding fuel, fuel to get to an alternate, and any other contingency fuel for weather or other reasons, in addition to your reserve fuel. A deployed RAT is going to add drag that your fuel calculations didn't account for, and that's going to burn more fuel since it can't be stowed until the plane is on the ground once it's deployed. The climb to get back to cruise altitude from 15,000 feet is also going to burn more fuel with the engines at climb power, and that's not something your fuel calculations would account for, either. Now you can't be sure if you have enough fuel to get to your destination and/or still have the legal reserve fuel on board when you land.
Captain Kevin
 
mm320cap
Posts: 302
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2004 12:35 pm

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Sun Dec 30, 2018 1:12 am

AirKevin wrote:
Bradin wrote:
mm320cap wrote:
I’m alarmed that in the past couple of months we now have two instances of crews continuing flights to destination after significant mechanical anomalies (Lion flight prior to accident flight, and now this).

Just had a “discussion” with my FO about a scenario in which we had a B767-300 flame out both engines due to Captain’s flubbing an attempt to balance fuel. The crew got the engines relit, and the Captain wanted to continue to destination. The FO (who I know) demanded they return, so the Captain reluctantly did. My FO didn’t see a problem with continuing to destination. I almost came out of my shoes... where is the fuel burn calculation for gliding to 15,000’, and then climbing back to altitude? Where is the fuel burn calculation for a deployed RAT or HMG?

It seems to me that there is a new sense of taking things too literally and not employing good airmanship. The Lion pilots didn’t land with a stick shaker going off and half the instruments dead because the book didn’t tell them too?????

In this case, a jet engine flamed out because...... they had no idea. I would immediately suspect fuel contamination if there was no other obvious cause. But the point is that you don’t know why. So what ever happened to making the decision that is the safest course of action? It’s just shocking to me that a crew would continue to destination and overly many suitable alternates after an engine flames out for an unknown cause.

Lastly, once again, there is no point in getting bogged down in the minutia of whether an engine “failed” when I flamed out if it is able to be restarted. The checklist that drives a relight attempt is called an “Engine Fail” checklist.


So I am not a pilot, but there's a fuel burn calculation for deploying a RAT? Fuel burn when engines have flamed out? Or is there a standard operating procedure that the average aviation enthusiast is unaware of where the RAT must be deployed upon climbing back up to altitude during a dual engine flame out?

Most likely no calculations, but that's the point. Generally speaking, you're carrying enough fuel for the trip, plus holding fuel, fuel to get to an alternate, and any other contingency fuel for weather or other reasons, in addition to your reserve fuel. A deployed RAT is going to add drag that your fuel calculations didn't account for, and that's going to burn more fuel since it can't be stowed until the plane is on the ground once it's deployed. The climb to get back to cruise altitude from 15,000 feet is also going to burn more fuel with the engines at climb power, and that's not something your fuel calculations would account for, either. Now you can't be sure if you have enough fuel to get to your destination and/or still have the legal reserve fuel on board when you land.


That’s EXACTLY correct. That’s why it would be completely wrong to try to continue to destination.

We had a Pilot way back when that couldn’t get the gear to retract in a 737-300 after takeoff. Despite the FO’s strong objections, the “Captain” decided he was going to press on as it was only an SFO-LAX flight. The FAA was not impressed, and their question was - “how did you know how much fuel you were going to burn enroute with the gear down?” They responded accordingly. The FO (who recounted the story to me) was spared because he had tried just about everything short of physical violence to make the Captain reconsider.
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 1766
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Sun Dec 30, 2018 4:16 am

AirKevin wrote:
Most likely no calculations, but that's the point. Generally speaking, you're carrying enough fuel for the trip, plus holding fuel, fuel to get to an alternate, and any other contingency fuel for weather or other reasons, in addition to your reserve fuel. A deployed RAT is going to add drag that your fuel calculations didn't account for, and that's going to burn more fuel since it can't be stowed until the plane is on the ground once it's deployed. The climb to get back to cruise altitude from 15,000 feet is also going to burn more fuel with the engines at climb power, and that's not something your fuel calculations would account for, either. Now you can't be sure if you have enough fuel to get to your destination and/or still have the legal reserve fuel on board when you land.

Apologies if I'm not quite so enthusiastic as mm320; I'm only prepared to say
"That is MOSTLY correct"

Whilst the climb "back to cruise altitude from 15,000 feet is also going to burn more fuel with the engines at climb power," you have also benefitted from a period before that, slowly coasting down to 15,000 ft. Unless you lost altitude whilst going round and round in circles, you will have covered some distance towards your destination. Hence only a proportion of that period of climbing at full power will be an additional draw on the fuel load, not all of it.

I am reminded of a legendary Beechcraft demonstration pilot, who would perform a both-engines-out display in a King Air, or maybe a Baron. He would kill both engines at 3,000ft above the crowd, swoop down low, and swoop straight back up again to almost 3,000 ft, repeating this through a number of different manoeuvres including a loop, and all through conservation of momentum. I believe he finished off with a dead-stick landing.
Of course it wouldn't be allowed these days. :shakehead:
I was sure there was a photo on the database showing him in action, but I cannot find it now. Maybe it was just a dream....
Nothing to see here; move along please.
 
User avatar
AirKevin
Posts: 506
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2017 2:18 am

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Sun Dec 30, 2018 2:31 pm

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
AirKevin wrote:
Most likely no calculations, but that's the point. Generally speaking, you're carrying enough fuel for the trip, plus holding fuel, fuel to get to an alternate, and any other contingency fuel for weather or other reasons, in addition to your reserve fuel. A deployed RAT is going to add drag that your fuel calculations didn't account for, and that's going to burn more fuel since it can't be stowed until the plane is on the ground once it's deployed. The climb to get back to cruise altitude from 15,000 feet is also going to burn more fuel with the engines at climb power, and that's not something your fuel calculations would account for, either. Now you can't be sure if you have enough fuel to get to your destination and/or still have the legal reserve fuel on board when you land.

Apologies if I'm not quite so enthusiastic as mm320; I'm only prepared to say
"That is MOSTLY correct"

Whilst the climb "back to cruise altitude from 15,000 feet is also going to burn more fuel with the engines at climb power," you have also benefitted from a period before that, slowly coasting down to 15,000 ft. Unless you lost altitude whilst going round and round in circles, you will have covered some distance towards your destination. Hence only a proportion of that period of climbing at full power will be an additional draw on the fuel load, not all of it.

And how much fuel was saved during the drift-down period.
Captain Kevin
 
travaz
Posts: 853
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2001 1:03 am

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Sun Dec 30, 2018 6:19 pm

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
AirKevin wrote:
Most likely no calculations, but that's the point. Generally speaking, you're carrying enough fuel for the trip, plus holding fuel, fuel to get to an alternate, and any other contingency fuel for weather or other reasons, in addition to your reserve fuel. A deployed RAT is going to add drag that your fuel calculations didn't account for, and that's going to burn more fuel since it can't be stowed until the plane is on the ground once it's deployed. The climb to get back to cruise altitude from 15,000 feet is also going to burn more fuel with the engines at climb power, and that's not something your fuel calculations would account for, either. Now you can't be sure if you have enough fuel to get to your destination and/or still have the legal reserve fuel on board when you land.

Apologies if I'm not quite so enthusiastic as mm320; I'm only prepared to say
"That is MOSTLY correct"

Whilst the climb "back to cruise altitude from 15,000 feet is also going to burn more fuel with the engines at climb power," you have also benefitted from a period before that, slowly coasting down to 15,000 ft. Unless you lost altitude whilst going round and round in circles, you will have covered some distance towards your destination. Hence only a proportion of that period of climbing at full power will be an additional draw on the fuel load, not all of it.

I am reminded of a legendary Beechcraft demonstration pilot, who would perform a both-engines-out display in a King Air, or maybe a Baron. He would kill both engines at 3,000ft above the crowd, swoop down low, and swoop straight back up again to almost 3,000 ft, repeating this through a number of different manoeuvres including a loop, and all through conservation of momentum. I believe he finished off with a dead-stick landing.
Of course it wouldn't be allowed these days. :shakehead:
I was sure there was a photo on the database showing him in action, but I cannot find it now. Maybe it was just a dream....

Bob Hoover in a Shrike Commander. I saw him many times at the Reno Air races. He called it his Energy Management Demonstration.

Full Video here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQWXMLtR-LA
 
blueflyer
Posts: 4112
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 4:17 am

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Sun Dec 30, 2018 9:29 pm

SEPilot wrote:
6. The other engine then flames out.
7. Restart is attempted several times, finally succeeds.

6/7 should be "engine flames out repeatedly and is restarted automatically in every instance"
The Trump/Johnson special relationship: Special people on both sides of the Atlantic
 
blueflyer
Posts: 4112
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 4:17 am

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Sun Dec 30, 2018 9:35 pm

BelAviaFan wrote:
Contaminated fuel caused the engine problems of Brussels Airlines Airbus A330 OO-SFU, aviation24.be reports

The airline's official report thus far:
- Electronic issue caused the shutdown of #1 (AFAIK no further public details available)
- Fuel contamination the cause of the multiple shutdowns of #2
- No other operator reporting fuel contamination issue out of FIH
- Fuel tested negative for contamination at FIH
- Test flown on December 28, before aircraft back in service on December 29

Belgium's AIB and France's BEA investigating as a serious incident.
The Trump/Johnson special relationship: Special people on both sides of the Atlantic
 
User avatar
7BOEING7
Posts: 3039
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:28 pm

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Sun Dec 30, 2018 9:53 pm

blueflyer wrote:

Belgium's AIB and France's BEA investigating as a serious incident.


Should be interesting to see if any mention is made relative to the decision to bypass “suitable” airports on the way home or not comment.
 
User avatar
eisenbach
Posts: 185
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2001 12:57 am

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Sun Dec 30, 2018 9:56 pm

Waterbomber wrote:

Actually this is a night flight so they wouldn't have seen much through their windows.
Also, I doubt that they were carrying any VFR charts so all they could do is follow the MSA's.
They were lucky that both engines didn't fail simultaneously above the Alps, that's a nasty place to be in. Turin is a U-turn and all mountains to the North a bit like Denver. If both engines had failed at a bad point over the Alps, the risk of CFIT would have been real.


I really think, that there is a bit too much drama in this discussion.

1) I agree it's a serious incident.

2) I am very sure, the pilots where worried and thinking of all kind of diversions and possibilities (landing spots, root cause of the failure).

3) After restarting the engine and climbing back to FL380, I agree that continuing the flight was not very risky, especially as they approached Europe with heaps of landing strips and a good support by the air traffic control in case of an emergency.

4) Crossing the Alps at FL380 is not a huge risk, from FL380 you can glide quiet a long distance and you will have enough airports around. It would be something different, crossing the Alps at FL200 with just one engine operating.

===

I am looking forward for the report and the pilots protocols.

Cheers :-)
DC-6, DC9, Do228, Saab340, Twin-Otter, C212, Fokker50, AN24, MD90, MD83, EMB120, A380, A300, A343, A346, B721, B742, B744, B748...
 
User avatar
longhauler
Posts: 6322
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:00 am

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Sun Dec 30, 2018 11:11 pm

AirKevin wrote:
And how much fuel was saved during the drift-down period.

"drift down" might be a bit of an illusion. In practise, the operating engine would be at MCT and in lower altitudes, say around FL200, that operating engine would be burning roughly twice what two would be burning at FL380 at cruise thrust. While not a lot, the (now operating) APU would be burning fuel as well.

Depending on how long the aircraft spent at lower altitudes fuel burns would likely have been higher even before the restart/climb back up to cruise altitude.

What they likely did though, after reaching cruising altitude again, is look at the predicted fuel over the next waypoint and compared it to the flight plan to see exactly how much the "exercise" cost and what extra they were still carrying.

blueflyer wrote:
The airline's official report thus far:
- Electronic issue caused the shutdown of #1 (AFAIK no further public details available)
- Fuel contamination the cause of the multiple shutdowns of #2

Belgium's AIB and France's BEA investigating as a serious incident.


In other words, landing as soon as feasible would have been the wiser choice and they were pretty lucky to make it to the destination.

This might just be the "two engine failures from unrelated causes" the statisticians have been saying is not possible.
Just because I stopped arguing, doesn't mean I think you are right. It just means I gave up!
 
User avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8499
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:48 am

eisenbach wrote:
3) After restarting the engine and climbing back to FL380, I agree that continuing the flight was not very risky, especially as they approached Europe with heaps of landing strips and a good support by the air traffic control in case of an emergency.

I really question this line of thinking. Are you treating this restarted engine like any normal running engine? This aircraft with a relit engine is like any other twin in the sky?

I'd treat this aircraft little more than a single engined aircraft. The relit engine is a bonus that can afford you more options to get you a bit further, but I would hardly rely on it. I mean yeah, the odds of an engine failing are what, one in a million? Literally... it's super low. I wouldn't just reset the odds and say the odds of it failing again are one in a million, nor would I leave the other engine off the hook. These things don't just fail nilly willy, they are extremely reliable and a big reason why an engine will flameout is indeed fuel contamination which definitely threatens the other engine. If an engine fails there is a much higher chance there is a problem that'd cause it to fail again or the other engine to fail

If anything, I think this incident would be a perfect example of why you would NOT continue normal ops when successfully relighting an engine. Fuel contamination, coincidence, or aliens, whatever... one engine went out, and then the other went out! It's rare but it happens. Treat the relit engine like a failed one, maybe marginally better to get yourself to a more suitable divert, but then put it down

That all being said, I'd like to hear the final judgement on this (and unlikely, but hopefully the pilots' point of view.) Who knows, this could've easily been an error in translation, things get horribly misreported all the time. I've been on both sides of aircraft malfunctions, I appreciate when people listen to my point of view before judging and try to do the same to other pilots. But some of the thought processes being thrown around on this forum makes me hope that we have a lot of armchair airline pilots and not real ones. An engine going out is a big deal... diverting is not that big of one, really keep in mind the risks vs the benefits
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 1766
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Mon Dec 31, 2018 10:25 am

AirKevin wrote:
blah, blah, blah

Shaky wrote:
"That is MOSTLY correct"

Whilst the climb "back to cruise altitude from 15,000 feet is also going to burn more fuel with the engines at climb power," you have also benefitted from a period before that, slowly coasting down to 15,000 ft. Unless you lost altitude whilst going round and round in circles, you will have covered some distance towards your destination. Hence only a proportion of that period of climbing at full power will be an additional draw on the fuel load, not all of it.

AirKevin wrote:
And how much fuel was saved during the drift-down period.

Slightly less than the quantity you calculated was required to climb back up to altitude. :roll:
Nothing to see here; move along please.
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 1766
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Mon Dec 31, 2018 10:32 am

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
I am reminded of a legendary Beechcraft [oops!] demonstration pilot, who would perform a both-engines-out display in a King Air [ :shakehead: ], or maybe a Baron [not that either]. He would kill both engines at 3,000ft above the crowd, swoop down low, and swoop straight back up again to almost 3,000 ft, repeating this through a number of different manoeuvres including a loop, and all through conservation of momentum. I believe he finished off with a dead-stick landing.
Of course it wouldn't be allowed these days. :shakehead:
I was sure there was a photo on the database showing him in action, but I cannot find it now. Maybe it was just a dream....

travaz wrote:
Bob Hoover in a Shrike Commander. I saw him many times at the Reno Air races. He called it his Energy Management Demonstration.

Full Video here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQWXMLtR-LA

God bless you, Sir!
I had this awful feeling a King Air was too clumsy, and a Beech Baron too light.
And now I understand why my original search came up empty.
Nothing to see here; move along please.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos