This time Singapore Airlines Airbus "loses" engines

Matthew

Matthew

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
18,648
Location
kojc, kixd, k34
Display Name
Display name:
Matthew
A330 loses power in both engines temporarily.

Of course there was terror in the aisles.

>>>
The airline told MailOnline Travel: 'Both engines experienced a temporary loss of power, although one engine returned to normal operations almost immediately.

'The pilots followed operational procedures to restore normal operation of the second engine by putting the aircraft into a controlled descent, before climbing again.

'The flight continued normally to Shanghai and touched down uneventfully at 10:56pm local time.'
<<<

​
Any speculation that the crew shut down the wrong engine?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/t...fail-hitting-bad-weather-South-China-Sea.html
 
Plummet, what a joke. Doesn't the 330 have something like a 28:1 glide ratio? What's that, around 100 miles from 39,000'? What's the maximum restart altitude on the Trents? Can turbulence create a compressor stall or some other issue that cause an engine to flame out?
 
when it gets real quiet and you didn't depart in a glider, remember to switch tanks...


snark,snark,snark (we need an emoticon for a snark)
 
Clark1961 said:
No idea but at lest one 767 and one Bus has arrived sans fuel
Click to expand...

Lol, that's true, however these guys got restarted which means they had fuel onboard. I would suspect something as advanced as an A-330 would manage fuel onboard in such a way that 'forgetting to switch tanks' is not an available option, but you never know.:dunno:
 
nddons said:
If only hey had the Cessna "left" "right" "both" levers, they would have been fine. ;)
Click to expand...

I'm not certain it doesn't run a single/central sump/open tie pick up option for normal ops. It's certainly not out of the realm of possibility. Still be interesting to see if it was weather or machine/human based. The weather around there is some severe stuff, and Asia has some serious weather going on right now.
 
Last edited:
Matthew said:
How much rain does an engine like that have to ingest to put out the fire?
Click to expand...

More than a typical severe thunderstorm. I have seen certification videos where they are shooting fire hoses into the engines and they don't typically flame out.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
More than a typical severe thunderstorm. I have seen certification videos where they are shooting fire hoses into the engines and they don't typically flame out.
Click to expand...
After I asked, I started thinking that it would probably be enough water that the compressor blades would get overwhelmed and be damaged first.
 
Henning said:
I would suspect something as advanced as an A-330 would manage fuel onboard in such a way that 'forgetting to switch tanks' is not an available option, but you never know.:dunno:
Click to expand...

In all of the transport planes I have flown, including the 777 and the A-320, there are basically three tanks. Left, Right, and Center. When there is fuel in the center tank, both engines feed out of that tank until it is dry and then each engine feeds off of its own tank. There is no automatic switching of tanks. About the only way one can run one tank dry is if the pilots screwed up a crossfeed. Even then the plane will let you know if it is getting too far out of balance.

There is no "switching" of tanks in normal operation.
 
Henning said:
Plummet, what a joke. Doesn't the 330 have something like a 28:1 glide ratio?
Click to expand...
No clue, but, seriously doubt it'd be anywhere near 28:1, probably closer to about half that.
 
jesse said:
No clue, but, seriously doubt it'd be anywhere near 28:1, probably closer to about half that.
Click to expand...

At cruise altitude in all the transport planes I have flown, the rule of thumb for descent planning is three miles forward for each thousand feet of altitude loss at idle thrust. That works out to close to 15:1.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Sure it will. What is the alternative? Manufacture fuel when it gets low? :D

Smartass remark, I know. Just struck me funny.
Click to expand...

:lol: Yeah, kinda shortly worded, but you get it. Can you run one set of tanks dry and starve out the engines while still having FOB in other tanks? Considering everything else in the design of the plane, I would think that would not be an option in normal operations.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
At cruise altitude in all the transport planes I have flown, the rule of thumb for descent planning is three miles forward for each thousand feet of altitude loss at idle thrust. That works out to close to 15:1.
Click to expand...

I know the 747 was that, just seem to remember something written on them that left them considerably higher.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
In all of the transport planes I have flown, including the 777 and the A-320, there are basically three tanks. Left, Right, and Center. When there is fuel in the center tank, both engines feed out of that tank until it is dry and then each engine feeds off of its own tank. There is no automatic switching of tanks. About the only way one can run one tank dry is if the pilots screwed up a crossfeed. Even then the plane will let you know if it is getting too far out of balance.

There is no "switching" of tanks in normal operation.
Click to expand...
With the exception that the Bus will switch to inner wing tanks when slats are selected for takeoff, then back to center tank with slat retraction. Plus the wings will automatically burn down a bit to make room for IDG return fuel.
The switch to inner wing tanks with slats is to ensure seperate tank feeding for takeoff.
 
Kritchlow said:
With the exception that the Bus will switch to inner wing tanks when slats are selected for takeoff, then back to center tank with slat retraction. Plus the wings will automatically burn down a bit to make room for IDG return fuel.
The switch to inner wing tanks with slats is to ensure seperate tank feeding for takeoff.
Click to expand...

So fuel management is automated?
 
That still doesn't mean it can't be manipulated manually...
 
Kritchlow said:
That still doesn't mean it can't be manipulated manually...
Click to expand...

I never indicated it couldn't, but that would not be part of normal operations which was my suspicion in a plane with the design philosophy of "pilot proofing".
 
Clark1961 said:
or that a powered valve won't fail
Click to expand...

So which valve are we talking about?

Henning said:
But would one powered valve failing kill both engines?
Click to expand...

Nope.

And how would a "powered valve" (versus unpowered valve :rolleyes: ) fail? Does it fail open or closed?

a330%20fuel_zps2h22vb3w.jpg
 
RotorAndWing said:
So you are saying, on an Airbus, if a valve is open, and power is removed it will close? :dunno:
Click to expand...

No, I am saying the opposite, at least I hope so as I don't have anything that confirms it. I would suppose any fuel valve that the power is removed from, would go to a position that allows access to the fuel, and most likely that would leave the valve open. That's a question you could answer, is the cross feed valve normally open or normally closed? That would tell us right there since the operating position is closed in the above diagram.
 
Henning said:
No, I am saying the opposite, at least I hope so as I don't have anything that confirms it. I would suppose any fuel valve that the power is removed from, would go to a position that allows access to the fuel, and most likely that would leave the valve open.
Click to expand...

I still don't follow the "fail open" that you keep saying is so important. :dunno:

Valve has 2 positions, open or closed. What "failure" would occur that would require the valve to go to an open position? :dunno:

Power is applied to the valve to either open or close it. It doesn't require constant power to hold it open. So a loss of power to the valve is only going to leave the valve in its last position.

Henning said:
That's a question you could answer, is the cross feed valve normally open or normally closed? That would tell us right there since the operating position is closed in the above diagram.
Click to expand...

Normally closed.

And what would that tell us? :dunno:
 
Last edited:
We use hydraulic solenoid valves in some of our equipment that have normally open or normally closed characteristics. Spring loaded to one position or the other, power is required to hold it in the opposite state.

I'm not sure about using something like that in a fuel valve. There are a lot of things to consider - if power is lost, do you want it to open or close? Why? Why not? Safety reasons pro/con?
 
RotorAndWing said:
I still don't follow the "fail open" that you keep saying is so important. :dunno:

Valve has 2 positions, open or closed. What "failure" would occur that would require the valve to go to an open position? :dunno:

Power is applied to the valve to either open or close it. It doesn't require constant power to hold it open. So a loss of power to the valve is only going to leave the valve in its last position.



Normally closed.

And what would that tell us? :dunno:
Click to expand...

Failure of the control system.
 
Henning said:
So fuel management is automated?
Click to expand...

Yep, although the Air Transat A330 had a severe leak, and the automatic fuel load balancing dutifully kept pumping fuel from the non-leaking talk to the leaking one to try to balance - hence, its stint as a glider. I don't really blame the plane for that one, pilots should have been paying attention.
 
SCCutler said:
Yep, although the Air Transat A330 had a severe leak, and the automatic fuel load balancing dutifully kept pumping fuel from the non-leaking talk to the leaking one to try to balance - hence, its stint as a glider. I don't really blame the plane for that one, pilots should have been paying attention.
Click to expand...

I remember hearing about that one now, yeah that's right. I don't recall ever seeing a final report on it though. I wonder what all went wrong?
 
Henning said:
I remember hearing about that one now, yeah that's right. I don't recall ever seeing a final report on it though. I wonder what all went wrong?
Click to expand...

Busted fuel pipe (left nacelle, iirc), engine still getting fuel, lots more being pumped overboard. Cockpit crew did not notice until flameout on the leaking side, followed soon after by other side? Long, quiet ride sown to a hard (but successful) landing at... Funchal?

Now, off to see if any of my recollecting is accurate...
 
SCCutler said:
Busted fuel pipe (left nacelle, iirc), engine still getting fuel, lots more being pumped overboard. Cockpit crew did not notice until flameout on the leaking side, followed soon after by other side? Long, quiet ride sown to a hard (but successful) landing at... Funchal?

Now, off to see if any of my recollecting is accurate...
Click to expand...

Thanks, I imagine they noticed a discrepancy and went into "what is it doing now ?" mode.
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top