Ruscoe
Posts: 1738
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 1999 5:41 pm

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Wed Dec 26, 2018 7:53 am

[/quote]That far south your fuel isn’t going to freeze.[/quote]
Eeeehh?? At 40000 feet it is still -55°C outside, no matter the latitude.

And if you are referring to the second flame out, it was over northern France....[/quote]

What I am thinking is not the fuel freezing, it is small droplets of water in the fuel freezing and building up in the filtration system. This could occurr at the time of each uncommanded (by the pilots) shut down, and explain why the engine could be restarted, and the problem recur, whether or not it was the same or the opposite engine.


Ruscoe
 
User avatar
BirdBrain
Posts: 104
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 4:54 pm

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Wed Dec 26, 2018 9:12 am

Very scarce details available but looks like Delta flight from Beijing to Seattle had engine trouble and decided to land instead of continuing. Probably something completely different, but something to think about.

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/wo ... d-11062706
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 10191
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Wed Dec 26, 2018 9:48 am

LewisNEO wrote:
BoeingGuy wrote:
LewisNEO wrote:

It is not the first time a trip is being continued after an engine that turned of has been restarted. I am with Dutchy here, it depends on numerous factors on what the pilots decide to divert or continue their flight. A twin or tri or quad can fly perfectly well with one engine shut. It can even take-off and land with just one engine, that's what they are made for. Losing an engine in flight is depending in the circumstances not a particularly serious problem, pilots are trained to fly the aircraft should an engine fail. If an engine did fail in flight, they would carry out a number of checklists to ensure the engine is secure and safe, and may as a precaution land at a different site if necessary.

Actually, I found some incidents at which there was an engine failure in flight, and the flight was completed to the final destination. One of them is the Virgin Atlantic Boeing 747-400 G-VBIG performing flight VS-43 from London Gatwick to Las Vegas and continued its flight on may 5th 2016. It is not exactly the same, but it is possible.

I remain with one question: were there other incidents with other airplanes who left from Kinshasa? If the fuel is contaminated, one would assume some issues with other airplanes too who got the fuel from the same batch. N'djili Airport is a relatively small airport, but there are quite a few international flights with legacy carriers from there to the Middle East and Europe next to local airliners, and there are also airlines like KL who use it as a stopover between Amsterdam and Nairobi.


I’ll try to be polite and not condescending (too much) but there are a lot of inaccuracies and lack of understand of aviation safety in your post.

I’m guessing you are not familiar with the regulations concerning failure of an engine on a twin. Granted the crew restarted it, but they didn’t know why it failed in the first place.


Thanks for not being too patronizing this time. Anyway, you show in this whole discussion you know everything, please would you be so polite to explain it to us all?


And show us why professionals in the cockpit and the Brussel Airlines HQ were wrong.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 1834
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Wed Dec 26, 2018 9:49 am

The large consensus of opinion here seems to be swayed in favor of the "safe" option; i.e. land at the first available airport.

Except …. common sense would also dictate you would desire an airport with reasonable facilities, both in terms of maintenance for the aircraft, and comfort for the passengers. If you neglect either of these, the time on the ground could be extensive and uncomfortable. Uncomfortable to the extent that an elderly or less than totally healthy person might succumb to stress or other factors, and die (of "natural causes"). What price the "safe" option then? It's an extreme case, but every time a collection of people are delayed in the name of safety, they all suffer a little death by virtue of a diminishing of their quality of life.
It is a variation on every health system on the planet; we have limited resources and are faced with a choice; do we spend $100,000 saving one individual from certain death; or $1,000 x 100 individuals, each of whom gains quality of life in some way. These decisions are made every single day, except most of us are never faced directly with the one individual who is left to die; it's all lost in the general statistics.
Joseph Stalin wrote:
One death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic

So the pilots made a decision to carry on, not only so that they could get to back Brussels, greet the wife & children, and sleep in their own bed, but so that 300 pax on board could look forward to the same, instead of some ghastly alternative. Not to mention the implications for getting the a/c back to base where the problem could be investigated promptly, the aircraft turned around, and potential delays to the next flight avoided, yielding an improved quality of life for another 300 passengers down the line. There are financial implications too - but it's not just about the $$$

The common misconception is that safety is free-of-charge, because following the safe option, no-one gets visibly hurt. The truth is safety costs every single one of us, and the cumulative effect is to shorten everyone's life expectancy. But we all have grown used to this, and don't even see it.


I'm looking forward to some flak from many of you, except perhaps health professionals who face difficult decisions like these every day.
Nothing to see here; move along please.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 10191
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Wed Dec 26, 2018 9:53 am

BirdBrain wrote:
Very scarce details available but looks like Delta flight from Beijing to Seattle had engine trouble and decided to land instead of continuing. Probably something completely different, but something to think about.

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/wo ... d-11062706


Well, I would be more careful overflying the Baring straights then overflying north Africa, the Mediterranean and Europe. In the later region, you have an airport capable of handling this aircraft in 100km or so. That is even if those two incidents are similar, which doesn't seem so.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
MalevTU134
Posts: 2188
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 8:04 pm

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Wed Dec 26, 2018 9:53 am

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
The large consensus of opinion here seems to be swayed in favor of the "safe" option; i.e. land at the first available airport.

Except …. common sense would also dictate you would desire an airport with reasonable facilities, both in terms of maintenance for the aircraft, and comfort for the passengers. If you neglect either of these, the time on the ground could be extensive and uncomfortable. Uncomfortable to the extent that an elderly or less than totally healthy person might succumb to stress or other factors, and die (of "natural causes"). What price the "safe" option then? It's an extreme case, but every time a collection of people are delayed in the name of safety, they all suffer a little death by virtue of a diminishing of their quality of life.
It is a variation on every health system on the planet; we have limited resources and are faced with a choice; do we spend $100,000 saving one individual from certain death; or $1,000 x 100 individuals, each of whom gains quality of life in some way. These decisions are made every single day, except most of us are never faced directly with the one individual who is left to die; it's all lost in the general statistics.
Joseph Stalin wrote:
One death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic

So the pilots made a decision to carry on, not only so that they could get to back Brussels, greet the wife & children, and sleep in their own bed, but so that 300 pax on board could look forward to the same, instead of some ghastly alternative. Not to mention the implications for getting the a/c back to base where the problem could be investigated promptly, the aircraft turned around, and potential delays to the next flight avoided, yielding an improved quality of life for another 300 passengers down the line. There are financial implications too - but it's not just about the $$$

The common misconception is that safety is free-of-charge, because following the safe option, no-one gets visibly hurt. The truth is safety costs every single one of us, and the cumulative effect is to shorten everyone's life expectancy. But we all have grown used to this, and don't even see it.


I'm looking forward to some flak from many of you, except perhaps health professionals who face difficult decisions like these every day.

Splendidly put!!!
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 10191
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Wed Dec 26, 2018 9:57 am

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
The large consensus of opinion here seems to be swayed in favor of the "safe" option; i.e. land at the first available airport.

Except …. common sense would also dictate you would desire an airport with reasonable facilities, both in terms of maintenance for the aircraft, and comfort for the passengers. If you neglect either of these, the time on the ground could be extensive and uncomfortable. Uncomfortable to the extent that an elderly or less than totally healthy person might succumb to stress or other factors, and die (of "natural causes"). What price the "safe" option then? It's an extreme case, but every time a collection of people are delayed in the name of safety, they all suffer a little death by virtue of a diminishing of their quality of life.
It is a variation on every health system on the planet; we have limited resources and are faced with a choice; do we spend $100,000 saving one individual from certain death; or $1,000 x 100 individuals, each of whom gains quality of life in some way. These decisions are made every single day, except most of us are never faced directly with the one individual who is left to die; it's all lost in the general statistics.
Joseph Stalin wrote:
One death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic

So the pilots made a decision to carry on, not only so that they could get to back Brussels, greet the wife & children, and sleep in their own bed, but so that 300 pax on board could look forward to the same, instead of some ghastly alternative. Not to mention the implications for getting the a/c back to base where the problem could be investigated promptly, the aircraft turned around, and potential delays to the next flight avoided, yielding an improved quality of life for another 300 passengers down the line. There are financial implications too - but it's not just about the $$$

The common misconception is that safety is free-of-charge, because following the safe option, no-one gets visibly hurt. The truth is safety costs every single one of us, and the cumulative effect is to shorten everyone's life expectancy. But we all have grown used to this, and don't even see it.


I'm looking forward to some flak from many of you, except perhaps health professionals who face difficult decisions like these every day.


Why do you expect some flak? This is the correct analysis. In the end, safety is one of the concerns, there are others. In the end, the pilots are on the plane, so if they think it is unsafe to continue, they don't. They will die too in a crash.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 17671
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Wed Dec 26, 2018 9:59 am

Varsity1 wrote:
The 747 is unusual in that a single engine failure doesn't even have a checklist procedure. The BA crew cited this as "No checklists required, good to go". The FAA and CAA/EASA saw it in a different light..


So what rules/regulations were changed as a result of this? Were the crew or BA sanctioned over it?
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
User avatar
Finn350
Posts: 1594
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:57 am

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Wed Dec 26, 2018 10:39 am

BirdBrain wrote:
Very scarce details available but looks like Delta flight from Beijing to Seattle had engine trouble and decided to land instead of continuing. Probably something completely different, but something to think about.

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/wo ... d-11062706


The Delta flight had Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky airport (PKC) literally beneath them when they started descending. The crew opted to divert to Shemya (SYA) that was over 1,000 km and 2 hour flight away from that point. The crew probably preferred an airport at home soil rather than in Russian Far East. So in the end the decision by the Delta crew was very similar to the decision by the Brussels Airlines crew.
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5484
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Wed Dec 26, 2018 11:05 am

Before throwing stones at the crew remember that jet engines have become extraordinarily reliable, and that is since they first came into service; it is not a recent development. So when they had the first failure and were able to successfully restart it there was absolutely no reason to suspect that they would have any further trouble, especially since they had no clue (and still don’t, apparently) what caused the problem. They had both engines running, everything seemed normal; why should they divert? Only when the second engine acted up were questions raised, and by then they were almost there.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
kalvado
Posts: 2112
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Wed Dec 26, 2018 12:19 pm

If we want to go numeric... What are the chances they would end up with both engines off in cruise? The backside of envelope estimate - coupled with postmortem data of multiple restarts in descent - shows something on the order of 1%.
Cost of human life is about $2M, frame cost is on the order of $0.5M per passenger. Now lets talk about diversion inconvenience cost exceeding $25k per pax as that is the breakeven point...
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21769
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Wed Dec 26, 2018 1:24 pm

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
The large consensus of opinion here seems to be swayed in favor of the "safe" option; i.e. land at the first available airport.

Except …. common sense would also dictate you would desire an airport with reasonable facilities, both in terms of maintenance for the aircraft, and comfort for the passengers. If you neglect either of these, the time on the ground could be extensive and uncomfortable. Uncomfortable to the extent that an elderly or less than totally healthy person might succumb to stress or other factors, and die (of "natural causes"). What price the "safe" option then? It's an extreme case, but every time a collection of people are delayed in the name of safety, they all suffer a little death by virtue of a diminishing of their quality of life.
It is a variation on every health system on the planet; we have limited resources and are faced with a choice; do we spend $100,000 saving one individual from certain death; or $1,000 x 100 individuals, each of whom gains quality of life in some way. These decisions are made every single day, except most of us are never faced directly with the one individual who is left to die; it's all lost in the general statistics.
Joseph Stalin wrote:
One death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic

So the pilots made a decision to carry on, not only so that they could get to back Brussels, greet the wife & children, and sleep in their own bed, but so that 300 pax on board could look forward to the same, instead of some ghastly alternative. Not to mention the implications for getting the a/c back to base where the problem could be investigated promptly, the aircraft turned around, and potential delays to the next flight avoided, yielding an improved quality of life for another 300 passengers down the line. There are financial implications too - but it's not just about the $$$

The common misconception is that safety is free-of-charge, because following the safe option, no-one gets visibly hurt. The truth is safety costs every single one of us, and the cumulative effect is to shorten everyone's life expectancy. But we all have grown used to this, and don't even see it.

I'm looking forward to some flak from many of you, except perhaps health professionals who face difficult decisions like these every day.

Thing is, that pilot had to know after the first event any future decision s/he made would now be subject to question. From what I read here most pilots would be worried about losing their license and thus their career should a second event come along and make the first decision to continue onward look like a bad one. Sure, I know the odds of a second significant event happening were minuscule, but some times odds bite you in the arse.

I think the pilot was taking a lot of personal risk after the first event occurred, since if things did go wrong afterwards they would take a lot of blame for whatever happened after the decision to continue. It's strange to think they'd take that risk just because they didn't want to spend a day or two in Africa, given the crew had just spent the night in Africa. It's strange they'd take that risk to benefit their employer because we've seen employers can't really do anything once the regulators get involved.
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
 
cc2314
Posts: 127
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 1:15 pm

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Wed Dec 26, 2018 1:25 pm

To divert or not to divert is in this instance is an interesting topic.If Algeria was unsuitable an area to divert to why so?
Will be interesting to see exactly what caused the engine issues.
Deleted
 
dabc
Posts: 102
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2018 5:38 pm

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Wed Dec 26, 2018 1:40 pm

Algeria is the largest country in Africa, 10th in the world. Most of the traffic between Europe and Ouest/Central/South Africa goes over Algerian Airspace
More than 40 airports, half of them are international
Most of the airports in the south (Sahara) are open during the night and have one or 2 3000m runways and even 3500m
During night, European airlines flights linking Europe and Africa can divert to many airports in the south as : TMR, DJA, OGX, AZR, CBH, TIN, GHA, IAM, BSK, ...
In the north : ALG, ORN, CZL, AAE are working 24/24

21st May 2018, LH569 333 D-AIKF LOS-FRA flight diverted to Tamanrasset (TMR), more than 2000km south of Algiers because of electrical odour on board. A replacement 333 was dispatched to TMR from FRA

TMR has 2 runways : 3100m and 3600m. A new Regional Aerial Traffic Control Center in TMR will enter into service in 2019

https://avherald.com/h?article=4b8ec8ff

Image
Last edited by dabc on Wed Dec 26, 2018 2:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 1834
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Wed Dec 26, 2018 1:55 pm

kalvado wrote:
If we want to go numeric... What are the chances they would end up with both engines off in cruise? The backside of envelope estimate - coupled with postmortem data of multiple restarts in descent - shows something on the order of 1%.

Do you actually mean the chances of a single engine failure leading to a double engine failure are 1%, or the chances of surviving a double engine failure are 1% (big difference!)

Cost of human life is about $2M, frame cost is on the order of $0.5M per passenger.

Very interesting, but let's go back and examine that supposed 1% figure first.

I suggest that plenty of a/c have suffered double engine failure as part of the same event i.e. within moments of each other. This is classic fuel problem territory, such as the Gimli glider and Air Transat 236 (Azores glider).

For comparison, how many a/c suffered one engine failure, and then lost engine #2 some time later? (possibly due to the same underlying cause, but as a separate event in terms of time)

Another subset is those a/c which suffered single engine failure, but the pilots then shut down the wrong engine. I am shocked by how often this seems to happen. Would it be helped if pilots could look out of their cockpit window and see with their own eyes which engine was in flames? Maybe a re-design of cockpit windows? Or dedicated CCTV ?

How many of double engine failures were restarted and landed successfully? And if that isn't possible, what are the stats for a permanent double engine failure resulting in the loss of all lives on board?

I'll offer the Gimli glider, Air Transat 236 (the Azores glider), Sullenbergers US Air 1549, the Tarom Il-18 that lost all four engines (!) back in 1962, Shall I go on? None of these resulted in any loss of life.

And the list of successful restarts followed by normal landings is considerably longer.

The data is out there, so I'm looking forward to your further analysis.
Nothing to see here; move along please.
 
kalvado
Posts: 2112
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Wed Dec 26, 2018 2:01 pm

Revelation wrote:
Thing is, that pilot had to know after the first event any future decision s/he made would now be subject to question. From what I read here most pilots would be worried about losing their license and thus their career should a second event come along and make the first decision to continue onward look like a bad one. Sure, I know the odds of a second significant event happening were minuscule, but some times odds bite you in the arse.

I think the pilot was taking a lot of personal risk after the first event occurred, since if things did go wrong afterwards they would take a lot of blame for whatever happened after the decision to continue. It's strange to think they'd take that risk just because they didn't want to spend a day or two in Africa, given the crew had just spent the night in Africa. It's strange they'd take that risk to benefit their employer because we've seen employers can't really do anything once the regulators get involved.

Thing is, second event did occur - and, assuming fuel contamination theory is correct, and if BA38 is of any relevance - continuing at cruise altitude did increase the risk of a problem at landing. Moreover, it sounds like a somewhat similar scenario - contaminated fuel creates issues during descent/landing. Of course, we're talking about a different airframe with a different engine - but similarity may be there.

I didn't find report AvHerald is referring to; maybe they did some tricks like flying at low altitude to warm up fuel system. But then they would likely not have enough fuel to go all the way home...
 
kalvado
Posts: 2112
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Wed Dec 26, 2018 2:10 pm

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
kalvado wrote:
If we want to go numeric... What are the chances they would end up with both engines off in cruise? The backside of envelope estimate - coupled with postmortem data of multiple restarts in descent - shows something on the order of 1%.

Do you actually mean the chances of a single engine failure leading to a double engine failure are 1%, or the chances of surviving a double engine failure are 1% (big difference!)

Cost of human life is about $2M, frame cost is on the order of $0.5M per passenger.

Very interesting, but let's go back and examine that supposed 1% figure first.

I suggest that plenty of a/c have suffered double engine failure as part of the same event i.e. within moments of each other. This is classic fuel problem territory, such as the Gimli glider and Air Transat 236 (Azores glider).

For comparison, how many a/c suffered one engine failure, and then lost engine #2 some time later? (possibly due to the same underlying cause, but as a separate event in terms of time)

Another subset is those a/c which suffered single engine failure, but the pilots then shut down the wrong engine. I am shocked by how often this seems to happen. Would it be helped if pilots could look out of their cockpit window and see with their own eyes which engine was in flames? Maybe a re-design of cockpit windows? Or dedicated CCTV ?

How many of double engine failures were restarted and landed successfully? And if that isn't possible, what are the stats for a permanent double engine failure resulting in the loss of all lives on board?

I'll offer the Gimli glider, Air Transat 236 (the Azores glider), Sullenbergers US Air 1549, the Tarom Il-18 that lost all four engines (!) back in 1962, Shall I go on? None of these resulted in any loss of life.

And the list of successful restarts followed by normal landings is considerably longer.

The data is out there, so I'm looking forward to your further analysis.

I am talking about postmortem analysis. And simple fact here is that they had at least one more shutdown (actually more than that, multiple restarts are quoted by AvHerald) within next few hours of flight, higher than 10%/hour
With some assumptions about how long it takes to relight (multiple times), chances of facing windmill restart were at least probable (FAA meaning of the word)
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 1834
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Wed Dec 26, 2018 2:12 pm

Revelation wrote:
Thing is, that pilot had to know after the first event any future decision s/he made would now be subject to question.
An unfortunate indictment of the modern world; fear of litigation and covering one's arse. If only decisions could be made based purely on common sense. {sigh}

Revelation wrote:
It's strange to think they'd take that risk just because they didn't want to spend a day or two in Africa, given the crew had just spent the night in Africa.
Maybe they were also thinking of the distress it would cause their 300 passengers, not necessarily because it was Algeria, but because it would seriously delay the flight. How many pax had onward connections, or a wedding they would miss?

Revelation wrote:
It's strange they'd take that risk to benefit their employer because we've seen employers can't really do anything once the regulators get involved.
I would sincerely hope that aspect would be incidental, and not the main reason for their actions. Maybe I am being naïve.

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
So the pilots made a decision to carry on, not only so that they could get to back Brussels, greet the wife & children, and sleep in their own bed, but so that 300 pax on board could look forward to the same, instead of some ghastly alternative
Nothing to see here; move along please.
 
sabenapilot
Posts: 3093
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2000 6:18 pm

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Wed Dec 26, 2018 2:14 pm

JAAlbert wrote:
I tell you this, those pilots may not be in trouble with their airline or EASA, but they sure have some explaining to do with us a.net folks!
It will be interesting to learn why the pilots continued on after the first engine stopped, especially if they were not certain what caused it to stop.


Because you seem to have missed it, but the engine relit, maybe?

No more legal need to land asap any longer with 2 engines running, as long as you constantly keep a suitable en route alternate within range, which you can move closer to destination as you near that alternate: first DJE, then CAG, then MRS, then CDG and finally BRU.
Something like that maybe?
It's not forbidden.

Hidsight is always 20/20, and knowing the scenario everybody would be willing to be on the ground ASAP, but fact is no ECAM, QRH, FCOM, checklist nor official document tells you to land ASAP after a flamed out engine was successfully relit. If it happened over the ocean, they wouldn't even had any other enroute option but to continue for several hours.

I'd say contaminated fuel was somehow involved here.
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 1834
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Wed Dec 26, 2018 2:43 pm

kalvado wrote:
And simple fact here is that they had at least one more shutdown (actually more than that, multiple restarts are quoted by AvHerald) within next few hours of flight

As I have said on more than one occasion; it pays to read the exact wording in news articles. And even then query if they might be lying or exaggerating in order to sell more advertising.

I am suspicious of the phrase "multiple restarts within the next few hours of flight".
Are either you or AvHerald adding 2+2 and making it 5?

The original article specified multiple restarts after the second fail at 05:37

Given that the a/c landed at 05:45..... I suggest this was a single event, during which time multiple restarts were attempted.
I would be much more interested to know if the a/c landed with only one engine functioning. To date I have seen no suggestion of that; I am merely asking the question.

I also queried if the failures were all connected with one engine. The news report stated both No.1 and No.2 engine, but then contradicts itself. :roll:
Nothing to see here; move along please.
 
kalvado
Posts: 2112
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Wed Dec 26, 2018 2:49 pm

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
kalvado wrote:
And simple fact here is that they had at least one more shutdown (actually more than that, multiple restarts are quoted by AvHerald) within next few hours of flight

As I have said on more than one occasion; it pays to read the exact wording in news articles. And even then query if they might be lying or exaggerating in order to sell more advertising.

I am suspicious of the phrase "multiple restarts within the next few hours of flight".
Are either you or AvHerald adding 2+2 and making it 5?

The original article specified multiple restarts after the second fail at 05:37

Given that the a/c landed at 05:45..... I suggest this was a single event, during which time multiple restarts were attempted.
I would be much more interested to know if the a/c landed with only one engine functioning. To date I have seen no suggestion of that; I am merely asking the question.

I also queried if the failures were all connected with one engine. The news report stated both No.1 and No.2 engine, but then contradicts itself. :roll:

Your questions are answered by AHerald:
http://www.avherald.com/h?article=4c170682&opt=0
They landed with BOTH engines on, but the one failed at landing was NOT the one failed in cruise. So looks like common cause, and dual engine out probability was there.
I would say this was similar to BA38 scenario, which means diversion wasn't a good scenario, but continuing in cruise is even less so.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21769
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Wed Dec 26, 2018 2:50 pm

kalvado wrote:
Thing is, second event did occur - and, assuming fuel contamination theory is correct, and if BA38 is of any relevance - continuing at cruise altitude did increase the risk of a problem at landing. Moreover, it sounds like a somewhat similar scenario - contaminated fuel creates issues during descent/landing. Of course, we're talking about a different airframe with a different engine - but similarity may be there.

Yes, the 2nd event did happen, and it did happen under some pretty favorable conditions, descending from cruise altitude. I have to wonder if the crew was second guessing their earlier decision to continue on.

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
Revelation wrote:
It's strange to think they'd take that risk just because they didn't want to spend a day or two in Africa, given the crew had just spent the night in Africa.
Maybe they were also thinking of the distress it would cause their 300 passengers, not necessarily because it was Algeria, but because it would seriously delay the flight. How many pax had onward connections, or a wedding they would miss?

Better to miss a wedding or two than 300 funerals.
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
DrPaul
Posts: 111
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2016 7:21 pm

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Wed Dec 26, 2018 4:07 pm

I couldn't help noticing this: 'A Brussels Airlines Airbus A330-223, performing flight SN358 from Kinshasa to Brussels... As the aircraft reached its cruising altitude of 40,000ft over Algerian airspace...' Kinshasa is in the Congo, and it took until Algeria to reach its cruising height. And I thought it was the A-340 that had a slow rate of climb.
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 1834
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Wed Dec 26, 2018 5:22 pm

I know that my internet connection is bad, but I'm having serious time-dilation problems today. Am I stuck in a time-warp? (Second thoughts - don't answer that)

e.g. This thread was started two days ago (Dec 24th) but refers to an event that occurred two weeks ago (Dec 10th) and was first reported on Dec13th.
It was only deemed of interest here on a.net when Belgium's AIB released a preliminary report a few days ago. Curious.

But there's more.....

A whole six weeks ago (Nov 5th) this happened;
my Belgian sauce wrote:
On 5 November, the left engine of a Brussels Airlines Airbus A330 (OO-SFZ) flying between Kinshasa and Brussels as SN359 failed to operate. At that moment, the aircraft was cruising at 40,000 feet
Déjà vu (again) ?
This was also not picked up by a.net as far as I know. I guess engine failures happen every day, and after all, nobody was hurt.

In fact, up until now I appear to be the only idiot here to connect these events. (Somebody tell me I'm wrong...)

Regarding the Nov 5 incident; I should add
"Passengers witnessed a sudden explosion and saw flames coming out of the left engine. The pilot confirmed the engine failure and reassured the passengers.
The pilots safely continued to Brussels on engine number two."

These are probably unrelated events; involving the same type, but two different airframes (OO-SFU, and -SFZ.), and just a huge coincidence involving Brussels Airlines and Kinshasa.
Probably, because nothing went "bang" on the second occasion, and the pilots successfully re-started the engine(s).

The main relevance for me is that for the last couple of months, talk in Brussels Airways crewrooms would almost certainly have featured single-engine procedures for the A330. Perhaps this contributed to the pilots decision when the more recent event took place.

I would post a link to the original news report, but it's for a rival aviation site, and I don't want to get into trouble with the mods. That happens enough anyway..... :roll:
Clue; it carries a Belgium domain name. Google "SN359 engine fail"
Nothing to see here; move along please.
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6545
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Wed Dec 26, 2018 5:41 pm

vinniewinnie wrote:
These people came from Africa my friend and from Kinshasa out of all places. You think that they would feel particularly unsafe in another city in Africa? Common be serious.


Algeria, especially outside Algiers, has not been a welcoming place for Africans from further south, to put it mildly.

https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/featu ... 31701.html

Brussels and its predecessors have been operating in Africa for decades and the people there are going to be very aware of such issues.
 
CriticalPoint
Posts: 620
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Wed Dec 26, 2018 5:47 pm

There is so much bad information on here that I literally cannot respond to it.
 
User avatar
AirlineCritic
Posts: 1667
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 1:07 pm

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Wed Dec 26, 2018 6:02 pm

Revelation wrote:
Sure, I know the odds of a second significant event happening were minuscule, but some times odds bite you in the arse.


I'll just observe that while the probability of an engine shutting down on a given flight is minuscule, that does not necessarily apply to a flight that has had one unexplained shutdown. That event could be something specific to that engine, in which case the other engine having a bad day is indeed VERY improbable. However, what are the odds of an issue that affects both engines? Fuel quality, fuel amount, icing, fuel system/pump/piping/leak issue, bad maintenance... I'd say that once one engine has had an event, the likelihood of the other engine having an event are far, far higher than a random other engine having an issue. Still, obviously we've had a very good safety record in the world overall on both twins and quads wrt engine issues. So the related issue probability is not as high as to cause twinjets or ETOPS be bad... But, I think getting back on ground once something has happened is and should be a part of the process.
 
User avatar
Finn350
Posts: 1594
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:57 am

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Wed Dec 26, 2018 6:09 pm

I would question whether the event was a dual engine failure. As I understand, this is more like double single engine failure, i.e. at all times there was at least one operative engine.
 
dabc
Posts: 102
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2018 5:38 pm

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Wed Dec 26, 2018 6:09 pm

seabosdca wrote:
vinniewinnie wrote:
These people came from Africa my friend and from Kinshasa out of all places. You think that they would feel particularly unsafe in another city in Africa? Common be serious.


Algeria, especially outside Algiers, has not been a welcoming place for Africans from further south, to put it mildly.

https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/featu ... 31701.html

Brussels and its predecessors have been operating in Africa for decades and the people there are going to be very aware of such issues.


Are passengers on board the Brussels Airlines 333 illegal migrants?

Many airlines divert to Algerian airports without any issues for passengers, African, European, Latin Americans or even martians ....

https://avherald.com/h?article=4b8ec8ff
 
TWA902fly
Posts: 3065
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 1999 5:47 am

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Wed Dec 26, 2018 6:38 pm

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
I know that my internet connection is bad, but I'm having serious time-dilation problems today. Am I stuck in a time-warp? (Second thoughts - don't answer that)

e.g. This thread was started two days ago (Dec 24th) but refers to an event that occurred two weeks ago (Dec 10th) and was first reported on Dec13th.
It was only deemed of interest here on a.net when Belgium's AIB released a preliminary report a few days ago. Curious.

But there's more.....

A whole six weeks ago (Nov 5th) this happened;
my Belgian sauce wrote:
On 5 November, the left engine of a Brussels Airlines Airbus A330 (OO-SFZ) flying between Kinshasa and Brussels as SN359 failed to operate. At that moment, the aircraft was cruising at 40,000 feet
Déjà vu (again) ?
This was also not picked up by a.net as far as I know. I guess engine failures happen every day, and after all, nobody was hurt.

In fact, up until now I appear to be the only idiot here to connect these events. (Somebody tell me I'm wrong...)

Regarding the Nov 5 incident; I should add
"Passengers witnessed a sudden explosion and saw flames coming out of the left engine. The pilot confirmed the engine failure and reassured the passengers.
The pilots safely continued to Brussels on engine number two."

These are probably unrelated events; involving the same type, but two different airframes (OO-SFU, and -SFZ.), and just a huge coincidence involving Brussels Airlines and Kinshasa.
Probably, because nothing went "bang" on the second occasion, and the pilots successfully re-started the engine(s).

The main relevance for me is that for the last couple of months, talk in Brussels Airways crewrooms would almost certainly have featured single-engine procedures for the A330. Perhaps this contributed to the pilots decision when the more recent event took place.

I would post a link to the original news report, but it's for a rival aviation site, and I don't want to get into trouble with the mods. That happens enough anyway..... :roll:
Clue; it carries a Belgium domain name. Google "SN359 engine fail"


Are you saying that on the November 5th event they continued on one engine only? That is quite different than being able to restart the failed engine, and flying all the way until approach to your final destination on 2 engines. I imagine the decision to continue after restarting the failed engine is quite different than the decision to continue on one engine only. Either way this seems to be a Kinshasa fuel problem (at first glance). Did any other airlines experience trouble?

'902
life wasn't worth the balance, or the crumpled paper it was written on
 
MalevTU134
Posts: 2188
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 8:04 pm

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Wed Dec 26, 2018 6:45 pm

TWA902fly wrote:
SheikhDjibouti wrote:
I know that my internet connection is bad, but I'm having serious time-dilation problems today. Am I stuck in a time-warp? (Second thoughts - don't answer that)

e.g. This thread was started two days ago (Dec 24th) but refers to an event that occurred two weeks ago (Dec 10th) and was first reported on Dec13th.
It was only deemed of interest here on a.net when Belgium's AIB released a preliminary report a few days ago. Curious.

But there's more.....

A whole six weeks ago (Nov 5th) this happened;
my Belgian sauce wrote:
On 5 November, the left engine of a Brussels Airlines Airbus A330 (OO-SFZ) flying between Kinshasa and Brussels as SN359 failed to operate. At that moment, the aircraft was cruising at 40,000 feet
Déjà vu (again) ?
This was also not picked up by a.net as far as I know. I guess engine failures happen every day, and after all, nobody was hurt.

In fact, up until now I appear to be the only idiot here to connect these events. (Somebody tell me I'm wrong...)

Regarding the Nov 5 incident; I should add
"Passengers witnessed a sudden explosion and saw flames coming out of the left engine. The pilot confirmed the engine failure and reassured the passengers.
The pilots safely continued to Brussels on engine number two."

These are probably unrelated events; involving the same type, but two different airframes (OO-SFU, and -SFZ.), and just a huge coincidence involving Brussels Airlines and Kinshasa.
Probably, because nothing went "bang" on the second occasion, and the pilots successfully re-started the engine(s).

The main relevance for me is that for the last couple of months, talk in Brussels Airways crewrooms would almost certainly have featured single-engine procedures for the A330. Perhaps this contributed to the pilots decision when the more recent event took place.

I would post a link to the original news report, but it's for a rival aviation site, and I don't want to get into trouble with the mods. That happens enough anyway..... :roll:
Clue; it carries a Belgium domain name. Google "SN359 engine fail"


Are you saying that on the November 5th event they continued on one engine only? That is quite different than being able to restart the failed engine, and flying all the way until approach to your final destination on 2 engines. I imagine the decision to continue after restarting the failed engine is quite different than the decision to continue on one engine only. Either way this seems to be a Kinshasa fuel problem (at first glance). Did any other airlines experience trouble?

'902

The incident in November: they were 1 hour out from BRU when the engine failed.
 
TWA902fly
Posts: 3065
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 1999 5:47 am

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Wed Dec 26, 2018 7:01 pm

MalevTU134 wrote:
TWA902fly wrote:
SheikhDjibouti wrote:
I know that my internet connection is bad, but I'm having serious time-dilation problems today. Am I stuck in a time-warp? (Second thoughts - don't answer that)

e.g. This thread was started two days ago (Dec 24th) but refers to an event that occurred two weeks ago (Dec 10th) and was first reported on Dec13th.
It was only deemed of interest here on a.net when Belgium's AIB released a preliminary report a few days ago. Curious.

But there's more.....

A whole six weeks ago (Nov 5th) this happened;
Déjà vu (again) ?
This was also not picked up by a.net as far as I know. I guess engine failures happen every day, and after all, nobody was hurt.

In fact, up until now I appear to be the only idiot here to connect these events. (Somebody tell me I'm wrong...)

Regarding the Nov 5 incident; I should add
These are probably unrelated events; involving the same type, but two different airframes (OO-SFU, and -SFZ.), and just a huge coincidence involving Brussels Airlines and Kinshasa.
Probably, because nothing went "bang" on the second occasion, and the pilots successfully re-started the engine(s).

The main relevance for me is that for the last couple of months, talk in Brussels Airways crewrooms would almost certainly have featured single-engine procedures for the A330. Perhaps this contributed to the pilots decision when the more recent event took place.

I would post a link to the original news report, but it's for a rival aviation site, and I don't want to get into trouble with the mods. That happens enough anyway..... :roll:
Clue; it carries a Belgium domain name. Google "SN359 engine fail"


Are you saying that on the November 5th event they continued on one engine only? That is quite different than being able to restart the failed engine, and flying all the way until approach to your final destination on 2 engines. I imagine the decision to continue after restarting the failed engine is quite different than the decision to continue on one engine only. Either way this seems to be a Kinshasa fuel problem (at first glance). Did any other airlines experience trouble?

'902

The incident in November: they were 1 hour out from BRU when the engine failed.


Okay that makes more sense, thanks.

'902
life wasn't worth the balance, or the crumpled paper it was written on
 
devron
Posts: 321
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2011 11:56 am

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Wed Dec 26, 2018 7:46 pm

Seriously two incidents over the period of two months? Do we kwon the cause of the first incident?
 
User avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8518
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Wed Dec 26, 2018 10:58 pm

IIRC, having an engine fail and it not restarting is a "land as soon as possible." Having it relight is "land as soon as practicable." At least that's what I can remember from my non-airline 737 time.

With that being said, I think the decision to press on past Algeria is an easy one to defend. Once you're into Europe and overflying developed airports with adequate facilities.......

I'd have to hear the pilots' reasoning. I've heard of a lot of incidents and the resulting decisions and it's easy to guess but it's more clear when you talk to the pilots themselves. I might disagree and sometimes the decision is objectively wrong for various reasons, but other times it might be the case of "this was the pilot's decision because of X Y and Z" and if that all checks out, it doesn't matter if I or 20 other pilots may have done differently

I think that's the case here. Because honestly I probably would've put it down in southern Europe... Doesn't mean I'm right or wrong, these pilots are right or wrong, or a pilot landing in Algeria is right or wrong
 
dabc
Posts: 102
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2018 5:38 pm

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Wed Dec 26, 2018 11:23 pm

DeltaMD90 wrote:
IIRC, having an engine fail and it not restarting is a "land as soon as possible." Having it relight is "land as soon as practicable." At least that's what I can remember from my non-airline 737 time.

With that being said, I think the decision to press on past Algeria is an easy one to defend. Once you're into Europe and overflying developed airports with adequate facilities.......

I'd have to hear the pilots' reasoning. I've heard of a lot of incidents and the resulting decisions and it's easy to guess but it's more clear when you talk to the pilots themselves. I might disagree and sometimes the decision is objectively wrong for various reasons, but other times it might be the case of "this was the pilot's decision because of X Y and Z" and if that all checks out, it doesn't matter if I or 20 other pilots may have done differently

I think that's the case here. Because honestly I probably would've put it down in southern Europe... Doesn't mean I'm right or wrong, these pilots are right or wrong, or a pilot landing in Algeria is right or wrong


FLying over Algeria south-north takes between 2 hours and 2 hours and half depending on the route. You should add another 50mn to reach southern France

Wy Lufthansa 333 made a diversion to TMR in south Algeria last may without any issue and Brussels Airlines should avoid it? Both airlines belong to the same group

See photo here : viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1411339&start=50#p20958043
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14061
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Wed Dec 26, 2018 11:42 pm

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
The large consensus of opinion here seems to be swayed in favor of the "safe" option; i.e. land at the first available airport.


Nearest suitable not nearest available, two very different meanings. Nearest available or off airport landing is what you would consider for a fire/smoke situation.

DeltaMD90 wrote:
IIRC, having an engine fail and it not restarting is a "land as soon as possible." Having it relight is "land as soon as practicable." At least that's what I can remember from my non-airline 737 time.


The amber Land ASAP will go away after a relight, however you do not know why it stopped in the first place.

In my line of work, if there is doubt, there is no doubt, take the conservative approach.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
cschleic
Posts: 1699
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2002 10:47 pm

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Thu Dec 27, 2018 12:17 am

BoeingGuy wrote:
LewisNEO wrote:
BoeingGuy wrote:

I’ll try to be polite and not condescending (too much) but there are a lot of inaccuracies and lack of understand of aviation safety in your post.

I’m guessing you are not familiar with the regulations concerning failure of an engine on a twin. Granted the crew restarted it, but they didn’t know why it failed in the first place.


Thanks for not being too patronizing this time. Anyway, you show in this whole discussion you know everything, please would you be so polite to explain it to us all?


I’ve explained it multiple times and so have others. Read the thread. Also, you state that twin engine airplanes can even take off on one engine. Please provide an example of when that has occurred.


The level of discussion of this topic has been interesting to say the least. But regarding the last statement, unless I'm mistaken, to be certified, all twin-engine airliners are required to demonstrate completing a take-off with one engine failing. Therefore, many of them have performed that type of take off. Now if you're thinking in terms of beginning the take off roll with just one engine running...that's different. Some planes probably could do it...depends on which type, load, etc. although probably not a good idea due to many reasons including the result of thrust imbalance.
 
Bradin
Posts: 294
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:12 am

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Thu Dec 27, 2018 12:28 am

Does anyone know what the checklists says?
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 6314
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Thu Dec 27, 2018 12:31 am

cschleic wrote:
BoeingGuy wrote:
LewisNEO wrote:

Thanks for not being too patronizing this time. Anyway, you show in this whole discussion you know everything, please would you be so polite to explain it to us all?


I’ve explained it multiple times and so have others. Read the thread. Also, you state that twin engine airplanes can even take off on one engine. Please provide an example of when that has occurred.


The level of discussion of this topic has been interesting to say the least. But regarding the last statement, unless I'm mistaken, to be certified, all twin-engine airliners are required to demonstrate completing a take-off with one engine failing. Therefore, many of them have performed that type of take off. Now if you're thinking in terms of beginning the take off roll with just one engine running...that's different. Some planes probably could do it...depends on which type, load, etc. although probably not a good idea due to many reasons including the result of thrust imbalance.


I don’t know what he was thinking in his post, but you are correct. All airplanes have to demonstrate they can suffer an engine failure at V1 and safely continue the takeoff and return to land.
 
User avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8518
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Thu Dec 27, 2018 1:02 am

dabc wrote:
Wy Lufthansa 333 made a diversion to TMR in south Algeria last may without any issue and Brussels Airlines should avoid it? Both airlines belong to the same group

IDK. You realize pilots have pilot's discretion right? Forget same airline group, take the same airline and same aircraft and give 10 pilots the same emergency. I think a lot of times you'd find 2 or 3 different options chosen. Maybe one of them is blatantly unsafe and actually "wrong," but often times you can have multiple "right" answers. There isn't always a single universally agreed upon right answer to everything.

Make it more gray, if an airliner had to land ASAP and the closest airport was Baghdad International Airport (back when the Iraqis were pushing ISIS out of Mosul, quite away from Baghdad but still) could you see a scenario where one pilot put it down in Baghdad and another went to Kuwait City?

I could train someone in a short time how to take off and hit autopilot (maybe a bit of an exaggeration but you get the point). That's not why airline pilots get paid the big bucks. They make their money for when it hits the fan, and just the day to day gray area scenarios of varying severity


zeke wrote:
The amber Land ASAP will go away after a relight, however you do not know why it stopped in the first place.

In my line of work, if there is doubt, there is no doubt, take the conservative approach.

Yeah, "our" line of work my man. Granted I'm not an airline pilot but I'm sure my non-airline 737 time was close enough to the airlines. I admittedly don't know enough about Algeria to make a good call (I am educated on the area I am flying around but never have been in that area so IDK) but surely there are countries you'd fly past? I mean depending on the severity and what is actually going on. I don't know what airline you fly for (I assume you're an airline pilot) but if you encountered a "land as soon as practicable" near North Korea, Somalia, Yemen, Syria, even Eastern Ukraine, etc, you might think twice about putting it down right away?

My whole point isn't even defending the crew's action. Not knowing enough about Algeria, I'd probably have put it down there. Maybe I'd fly to the nearest European city. Probably not to BRU. But you know the gray area decision making that you have to deal with in a large aircraft, the pilots MAY have had a good reason, IDK. I'd much rather hear them out before passing judgement

Edit: I said in last post I'd probably put it down in southern Europe... I was distracted earlier and am surprised when I reread what I wrote. I'd probably have put it down in Algeria (again without knowing details on Algeria)
Last edited by DeltaMD90 on Thu Dec 27, 2018 1:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
Adispatcher
Posts: 180
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2016 11:52 pm

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Thu Dec 27, 2018 1:03 am

Bradin wrote:
Does anyone know what the checklists says?


In regards to what? Engine failure?

Company procedure may supersede the QRH in the case of a reduced thrust situation.
 
YYZLGA
Posts: 381
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2016 4:28 am

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Thu Dec 27, 2018 1:17 am

I can't speak to the aviation procedures, but I can certainly say that, while it might not be my first choice for a vacation, airports like TMR are entirely secure and capable of handling a diversion if necessary. As for airports further north, northern Algerian and Tunisian airports have daily flights by many major international carriers. I believe Brussels Airlines even serves Tunisia. Not to mention that presumably any pax flying from Kinshasa aren't accustomed to complete safety and constant five-star comfort.

I can also confidently say that the idea that passengers would somehow be upset about being delayed because of a diversion following an engine failure is a myth. If anything, I can imagine that many passengers would likely be extremely anxious (however irrational that might be) in such a situation and would, if anything, welcome landing as quickly as possible.
Last edited by YYZLGA on Thu Dec 27, 2018 1:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 6314
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Thu Dec 27, 2018 1:17 am

Adispatcher wrote:
Bradin wrote:
Does anyone know what the checklists says?


In regards to what? Engine failure?

Company procedure may supersede the QRH in the case of a reduced thrust situation.


The Boeing ENG FAIL checklist says to land at the nearest suitable airport. I don’t recall if the Engine Relight checklist says to land. I’ll look it up when I get back in the office.
 
Adispatcher
Posts: 180
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2016 11:52 pm

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Thu Dec 27, 2018 1:41 am

BoeingGuy wrote:
Adispatcher wrote:
Bradin wrote:
Does anyone know what the checklists says?


In regards to what? Engine failure?

Company procedure may supersede the QRH in the case of a reduced thrust situation.


The Boeing ENG FAIL checklist says to land at the nearest suitable airport. I don’t recall if the Engine Relight checklist says to land. I’ll look it up when I get back in the office.


Our A330 checklist says if relight is unsuccessful to refer to ENG FAIL, which is land ASAP.
 
sabenapilot
Posts: 3093
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2000 6:18 pm

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Thu Dec 27, 2018 4:28 am

Adispatcher wrote:
BoeingGuy wrote:
Adispatcher wrote:

In regards to what? Engine failure?

Company procedure may supersede the QRH in the case of a reduced thrust situation.


The Boeing ENG FAIL checklist says to land at the nearest suitable airport. I don’t recall if the Engine Relight checklist says to land. I’ll look it up when I get back in the office.


Our A330 checklist says if relight is unsuccessful to refer to ENG FAIL, which is land ASAP.


And when it is successfully relit??? Nothing, right?!?

With the LAND ASAP amber gone and no reason to suspect fuel issues as root cause, the airplane is once again a twin, one that is ETOPS certified and flying on an ETOPS stretch even.

Why on earth would they have turned around in those conditions to put it down in Tamanrasett, Algeria, Sahara ASAP right in the middle of the night when they were most likely already well north of that place, given they considered Djerba, Tunisia at some point before when the ENG was not yet relit?

Once relit, the options become more widespread and they decided to take it a bit further north into Europe, and then further north to the final destination as all was still fine, always on two engines and with tens of suitable European airports nearby should the same engine flame out again. With nothing forbidding such decision in any book and on two working engines, it's a defendable decision.

Contaminated fuel is not forseen in any engine trouble related procedure on Airbus for the simple reason the manufacturer starts from the point such fuel is never going to be uplifted, hence they are allowed to work from the basis that one engine issue will not lead to a similar case on another one: otherwise ETOPS would not be allowed on any plane in the first place of course.
 
User avatar
7BOEING7
Posts: 3039
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:28 pm

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Thu Dec 27, 2018 5:02 am

BoeingGuy wrote:
Adispatcher wrote:
Bradin wrote:
Does anyone know what the checklists says?


In regards to what? Engine failure?

Company procedure may supersede the QRH in the case of a reduced thrust situation.


The Boeing ENG FAIL checklist says to land at the nearest suitable airport. I don’t recall if the Engine Relight checklist says to land. I’ll look it up when I get back in the office.



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)
 
Bradin
Posts: 294
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:12 am

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Thu Dec 27, 2018 5:22 am

Adispatcher wrote:
Bradin wrote:
Does anyone know what the checklists says?


In regards to what? Engine failure?

Company procedure may supersede the QRH in the case of a reduced thrust situation.



If Engine Failure → ?

If Engine Successfully Restarts → ?

If Engine Unsuccessfully Restarts → ?


Whatever the checklist says - whether it be company's or OEM's.
 
User avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8518
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Thu Dec 27, 2018 5:23 am

As I said before, I'm pretty sure engine failure that won't restart: land as soon as possible

Engine failure that restarts: land as soon as practicable

Land as soon as practicable doesn't mean you gotta put it down on the nearest piece of pavement but doesn't mean you can continue 8 hours to your destination. It gives you more of a judgement call

I have no idea if this is universal on all Boeing aircraft or if it carries over to Airbus, but I'd imagine it's similar

Sorry, I am out of town and can't look at my old checklists but I'm pretty sure that's what they said (and it makes sense)
 
Bradin
Posts: 294
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:12 am

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Thu Dec 27, 2018 5:29 am

DeltaMD90 wrote:
As I said before, I'm pretty sure engine failure that won't restart: land as soon as possible

Engine failure that restarts: land as soon as practicable

Land as soon as practicable doesn't mean you gotta put it down on the nearest piece of pavement but doesn't mean you can continue 8 hours to your destination. It gives you more of a judgement call

I have no idea if this is universal on all Boeing aircraft or if it carries over to Airbus, but I'd imagine it's similar

Sorry, I am out of town and can't look at my old checklists but I'm pretty sure that's what they said (and it makes sense)


I think what you've stated DeltaMD90 is likely factually true. However, my gut instinct is to defer to documentation rather than defer to the tar and feathering of the forum community here for not immediately diverting.

My personal, unscientific, non-pilot perspective is that the engine is functioning within expected parameters and if the risk is manageable and they were actively monitoring the engine, land as soon as practical. If the engine is not functioning within expected parameters, they should land as soon as possible.
 
User avatar
7BOEING7
Posts: 3039
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:28 pm

Re: Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Dual Engine Failure

Thu Dec 27, 2018 6:08 am

DeltaMD90 wrote:
As I said before, I'm pretty sure engine failure that won't restart: land as soon as possible

Engine failure that restarts: land as soon as practicable

Land as soon as practicable doesn't mean you gotta put it down on the nearest piece of pavement but doesn't mean you can continue 8 hours to your destination. It gives you more of a judgement call

I have no idea if this is universal on all Boeing aircraft or if it carries over to Airbus, but I'd imagine it's similar

Sorry, I am out of town and can't look at my old checklists but I'm pretty sure that's what they said (and it makes sense)


As for Boeing aircraft:

The only "land as soon as possible" relates to Smoke, Fire, Fumes (not from the engines). All the engine issues being discussed are "land at nearest suitable airport".

Although I've heard it talked about alot there is no "land as soon as practical" in any of the documents I have at my disposal.

There's a lot left to the Captain's discression (prior to airline modifications).

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