Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Buzzbait on August 28, 2001, 11:10:00 PM
-
S!
You're at 39,000 ft, piloting a twin engined Jumbo jet, with over 300 passengers aboard over the Atlantic, 200 kilometres from land. An engine goes out on you. You start a gradual decent towards the nearest landing field, the Azores. Things should be fine.
At 32,000 ft your second engine goes out. You are still over 100 kilometres from land. You are now faced with trying an engineless glide to the Airfield. Plus a powerless landing. And you are flying an aircraft with the glide characteristics not much better than a brick. Which means you have to make your landing approach at high speed and at a steep angle. In a fragile aircraft like a modern large passenger plane, a small miscalculation, and you and 300 others are hamburger in the midst of shattered junk.
You do the glide, and make your approach perfectly.
The only problem? The landing angle is so steep, and the speed so high, all your tires blow out the instant you hit.
You still pull off the landing.
Minor injuries to a few people.
Happened on the weekend.
Bet this guy is getting a few bottles of Scotch from appreciative passengers. :)
-
I'd hate to be in that position :). Sounds like the guy is a great pilot.
-
Friends don't let friends fly Airbus. :D
<sounds like he did a nice job with not much, though>
-
That is the second most impressive emergency landing I've heard of for a jumbo jet.
-
Lajes is kind of a squeak to land at anyhow even with power. The nearby hills can cause pretty nasty wind shear and shifting crosswinds on final, so I agree 100% it was a very nice job getting the plane down in one piece.
That said, I just finished cross-country instruction with my students here at Sheppard and the FIRST THING I taught them to do after level off checks is to validate their fuels on their flight plan. After that, you do a quick ops check every 15 minutes or so including a fuel check against the card, and you keep in mind a running update on how much fuel you'll have at the next nav point. We do all this by hand in the T-37, so with a flight computer and nav page they could use, I'm astonished they didn't realize they were in deep toejam hours before they ran out of gas.
I've gone no-kidding "min fuel" only twice in my relatively short flying career, and that's twice too many. Most jet pilots are paranoid about fuel but complacency kills just as fast in civilian, commercial, and military flying.
-
S!
Not sure of all the circumstances, but as far as I know, the fuel leak occurred mid Atlantic. Not sure if the instruments registered it.
-
Wasn't that the one where it landed on unused airfield where were some people on it?
and that plane broke its entire nose wheel, right?
-
Fishu - Your thinking of the 767 (Friends don't let friends fly ...) ;) that ran out of fuel many years ago over northern Ontario (Canada) and glided to Gimli Manitoba to an old abandoned RCAF airfield.
It was being used as a drag strip that day ...
Forever remembered as the 'Gimli Glider'
Cheers,
Rifle
PS It ran out of fuel because domeone screwed the pooch on the imperial to metric conversion.
[ 08-29-2001: Message edited by: Rifle ]
-
[rant]I thought a "Jumbo jet" was a boeing 747 series. I watched some movie a few weeks ago, pilot gets sick or something, the stewardess screams "I can't land this jumbo jet myself!". The camera gives a view of the outside of the plane, it's a freegin DC-10![/rant]
Nice story!, woulda hated to have been on that flight though. :)
-
The A330 series aircraft that was involved in this incident is considered to be a widebody aircraft.
The term "Jumbo Jet" is more of a news media term and not used much by anyone in aviation.
Hblair you are basically correct, the term Jumbo Jet was used for the 747, and the DC10 was also more or less considered to fall into this loose "category".
Think now in terms of narrowbody and widebody. The A330 would be in most peoples mind a widebody aircraft as it has a center seating section and not just a single middle aisle.
Dago
[ 08-29-2001: Message edited by: Dago ]
-
My brother flies the A330 for a US airline.
He said "first word" they got on it was "a leak in a low pressure fuel line". That's pretty sketchy, because you should be able to isolate most leaks before you run out of gas. Possibilties abound; did valves fail to close when signaled? did the crew perform the checklist correctly? etc., etc.
Obviously, there isn't enough data as yet. Well let you know if I hear anything more from my brother. I'd expect them to get a full brief as soon as Airbus figures out what actually happened.
Some of the story here: http://www.avweb.com/ (http://www.avweb.com/)
Oh yeah... what's the difference between an Airbus and a Homelite chainsaw?
About 30,000 trees a minute. :D
-
If it ain't Boeing I ain't going. :)
Nice landing though!
-
Funked, my brother in law is a certified FAA inspector both A and P, and works for American...he's worked on both Boeing and Airbus, and he books his flights strictly by aircraft type alone (Boeing)...need I say more? Think glue, and lots of it!
Of course, just to be fair..Boeing is no saint, can you say 737 rudder problems? How about 747 center fuel tank? :)
[ 08-29-2001: Message edited by: Ripsnort ]
-
Did they ever figure out what caused those 737 rudder problems? You know, the ones where all people aboard the 3 (I think it was 3) planes were killed when the planes mysteriously rolled over and augered into the ground...
-
lol, you musta added that in the edit rip, thinking the same thing.
-
Yes, they found the design flaw, retro-fitted current 737's and production changes in current 737's. Took the company along time to admit it though...
And actually it was a combination of bad design AND pilot error, the pilots over compensated for what was a routine rudder deflection case...though I'm no expert on the emergency procedures. Bottom line is, the pilots should have not had to compensate for it, bad design.
[ 08-29-2001: Message edited by: Ripsnort ]
-
I used to be a design engineer for aircraft actuation systems, and 737's scared the crap out of me for a while after I read a bunch of technical reports on the rudder system. Uncommanded split-S is NOT GOOD. Supposedly it's fixed. I think time will tell.
[ 08-29-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]
-
Originally posted by funkedup:
I used to be a design engineer for aircraft actuation systems, and 737's scared the crap out of me for a while after I read a bunch of technical reports on the rudder system. Uncommanded split-S is NOT GOOD. Supposedly it's fixed. I think time will tell.
[ 08-29-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]
Even with those scary design flaws, the 737 has the safest record of any commercial aircraft known to man. Just think, one takes off every 5 seconds somewhere around the world.
-
Originally posted by hblair:
lol, you musta added that in the edit rip, thinking the same thing.
Yes, I was, LOL!
-
I'm aware of that fact Rip, it's a helluva safe plane overall.
-
Flew the -800 with the "new, improved rudder actuator". Yeah, it's better but from my admittedly limited technical expertise view, they may not have totally eliminated the problem. I sure HOPE they did though.
As far as "pilot error" being involved I'd like to see your company docs on the accidents. I don't call uncommanded full rudder deflection a "routine rudder deflection case". I'm not sure you CAN over-react to uncommanded full rudder deflection. From what I heard and read in the Union message traffic, nobody survived the computer simulation of the accident in the simulator.
Still, I'd like to see what Boeing says. :)
As far as rudder actuators... you guys just aren't real good at them, sorry to say. The 707 and the -135 series all had hardover problems resulting in the installation of a rudder pressure shutoff switch on the center control stand to instantly depressurize the rudder actuator. Quite a few guys died until they resolved that one.
Same switch on the 727's, nuff said. <EDIT>: And they split the rudder in half so there were two separate systems, upper and lower rudder, each with its own control surface, acutator, and different hydraulic system. Smart; "belts and suspenders". Probably would have saved those 737's had it been used on them.)
737's? nuff said.
767-200 wags it's tail like a dog in cruise, even with the new yaw dampeners. The F/A's hate it, although it is much improved over the initial intro set-up.
757 and 767-300's are pretty good in cruise wrt "tail wagging" for some reason. I sorta think the 767-200 was just too short, too "close-coupled".
Still all in all, Boeing is "belts and suspenders" engineering. Almost always a "back-up to the back-up method" of getting things done. I love 'em.
Compared to Airbus? Not even. Do a search on how many Airbuses have been lost after capturing the glide slope on A/P. I'll take my chances on a Boeing rudder any day.
Beyond that, the "flight law" programming in the Airbus computers scares me. With Boeing and the old McDonnell stuff, the pilot is always the ultimate authority. Not so with a 'Bus.
For example, if you think you need to pull more than the design load limit (g) to save your ass, the Boeing flight control computers would let you. An Airbus computer thinks it is ultimately smarter than the pilot and will limit you to design G.
Simple difference in design philosophy that I can't agree with. Nah, no thanks.
Lastly, although I love Boeings, the best heavy transport I ever flew was the L-1011. Lord, what a plane! What a great design! What a well thought out cockpit and control set-up. No one else has come close on such smooth Cat III A/P capability to this day, and it's an old design. Sadly, the aircraft design was ahead of the technology available and it was a bit problematical on maintenance.
[ 08-29-2001: Message edited by: Toad ]
-
Toad, here are the recommendations that both Boeing and the NTSB implemented:
Improved pilot training into recovering from airplane "upsets," regardless of their cause;
An improved control valve in the 737 rudder system;
An improved yaw damper in the 737 rudder system;
The addition of a hydraulic pressure limiter to the 737 rudder system.
-
Rip,
I've already gone through the stipulated "upset training" two times now in the simulator. It is not 737 specific and all pilots, regardless of aircraft, get the training.
It didn't feature any special "how to react to uncommanded rudder movement" training. It was more in line with what, in my old USAF days, we simply called "unusual attitude recovery".
Not dinging you, just giving you my perspective.
I'd still love to see any Boeing documents that try to make the case that it was "pilot error".
Here's one I really like...
"There is no problem so complex that it cannot simply be blamed on the pilot.
— Dr Earl Weiner"
:D
<EDIT>: Weiner is one totally sharp guy, btw. He's put out some really insightful stuff on aviation safety.
[ 08-29-2001: Message edited by: Toad ]
-
Toad, we all know you're a waiter at the airport Denney's. We accept you for who you are, quit trying to be a bigshot.
;)
-
Sensitive subject Toad, pilot and engineer ego's don't mix, Boeing wanted enhanced training, NTSB wanted fixes in the rudder, they met on common ground. :)
Editted to "Pilot and engineer ego's from "Pilot ego's and engineers..."
[ 08-29-2001: Message edited by: Ripsnort ]
-
To get back to the topic at hand, these canucks pilots sure earned their salaries that day
Here is a snipit from CBC News:
Events unfolded
-------------------
He said they were about 480 kilometres northeast of Lajes airport on the island of Terceira, their fallback airport, when they noticed a severe loss of fuel.
(http://cbc.ca/gfx/photos/piche_robert010828.jpg)
Pilot Robert Piché
Piché said it all happened very quickly, because they left Toronto with enough fuel. About 38 minutes after Piché noticed the fuel problem, the right engine stopped. Ten minutes later, the second engine failed. That left the jet at 33,000 feet over the Atlantic Ocean, at night, with no engines.
"It's not what pilots like to dream about," joked Piché.
He said that using only basic instruments and "great support" from traffic control in Santa Maria and Terceira, they glided the plane to the ground.
The cabin crew were first told to prepare passengers for a water landing. When they realized they could make the airport in Terceira, passengers were told to brace for a rough touchdown on land.
(http://cbc.ca/gfx/photos/dejager_dirk010828.jpg)
FO Dirk DeJager
All passengers were evacuated from the plane within 90 seconds.
(http://www.avweb.com/graphics/crash/transat_glider.jpg)
----------
Over 300 people got out in just 90 seconds?!?!?! WOW. That is insane.
More info:
CBC QuickTime Report (http://cbc.ca/clips/mov/robson_airtransat010828.mov)
CBC RealVideo Report (http://cbc.ca/clips/ram-lo/robson_airtransat010828.ram)
[ 08-29-2001: Message edited by: Vruth ]
-
Any blown tires? Wonder what their final airspeed was on touch down...
-
Yeah, all the tires blew out Rip.
They said airspeed was very hot.
-SW
-
I'm no aeronautical engineer, how do they lower gear, flaps etc. with no engines? I'm guessing the hydraulics are operated by electric motors, is there a big bank of batteries to do that when the ngines aren't operating?
While we're on the subject, how does the electrical system get power from the jet engines?
-
HB there is a thing called a RAT (ram air turbine) which provides electrical and hydraulic power in that case. It is basically a little windmill which drops out of the fuselage. If there are photos of this A330 after the emergency landing, you'll probably be able to see the RAT sticking out of the lower forward fuselage. http://ww3.hamiltonsundstrandcorp.com/aerospace/products/ram_air_turbine.htm (http://ww3.hamiltonsundstrandcorp.com/aerospace/products/ram_air_turbine.htm)
Electrical power is normally provided by AC generators which are attached to each engine. These have a fancy transmission which takes the engine shaft speed (variable RPM) and converts it to a steady 400 Hz speed for the generator input shaft. The generator/transmission assembly is called an IDG (integrated drive generator). http://ww3.hamiltonsundstrandcorp.com/aerospace/products/electric_pwr_dis_gen_sys.htm (http://ww3.hamiltonsundstrandcorp.com/aerospace/products/electric_pwr_dis_gen_sys.htm)
There is also an APU which is a small gas turbine that drives a generator (plus a hydraulic pump and pneumatic compressor). I am not sure if they use the RAT or the APU first if the engines quit. I think it's the RAT but I'm no pilot. http://www.hs-powersystems.com/prodindex.htm (http://www.hs-powersystems.com/prodindex.htm)
Good overview diagram here: http://ww3.hamiltonsundstrandcorp.com/aerospace/systems/electric/electric.htm (http://ww3.hamiltonsundstrandcorp.com/aerospace/systems/electric/electric.htm)
FYI I used to work in the plant where they make the RAT and IDG for the A330. They also make the APU generator. You can bet the guys who work on the RAT or APU generator are beaming about this safe landing.
[ 08-29-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]
-
Cool, thanks for the links funked. I've always been interested in airliners, just never had the oppurtunity to learn much about them.
-
Funked:
Years ago I worked at Boeing for the 737 division. I am certain that this makes you feel better.
Hooligan
-
Let me guess, you designed rudder PCU valve spools? :D
-
I think you will find on the Airbus that the RAT powers the hydraulic system, which in turn can power a motor/generator. Basically a hydraulically driven A/C generator.
dago
-
LAJES FIELD, Azores (ACCNS) -- The pilot of a civilian Airbus A330 declared an in-flight emergency due to diminished fuel levels and engine problems and diverted here at 6:35 a.m. today, landing on the runway without power.
The unlit aircraft approached Lajes Field at high speeds and at a higher-than-normal altitude, but the pilot was able to safely land the plane, which had approximately 290 passengers on board.
The plane, part of the Air Transat fleet operating from Canada, departed from Toronto and was en route to Lisbon, but experienced system problems over the Atlantic ocean and diverted toward Lajes Field.
“He hit the pavement and bounced along until coming to a stop with about 2,500 feet of runway remaining.”
"plane’s wheels hit the ground and then the entire landing gear burst into flames."
“It was obvious the plane didn’t have any power, because it was completely dark, and it seemed like the pilot glided in and then slammed on the brakes,” he said. Shortly after landing the fire enveloping the wheels and landing gear was extinguished, and the passengers and crew left the aircraft using inflatable chutes."
“Everyone exited the plane quickly and safely,”
Most of the passengers were taken to the civilian airport terminal, but nine were transported to a local medical clinic for minor injuries and symptoms related to shock.
ps I have picture to go with this, just ask and I'll send it. Picture shows damage to runway and on background airplane with deplayed "slides"
-
If they were out of gas, odds are the APU wasn't running either. Draws gas from the same tanks the engines do but a weird valve problem might starve the engines while allowing the APU to get gas. Not familiar with Airbus systems.
The RAT probably dropped out (well, they're usually spring loaded) when both engine N2's dropped below a certain RPM. It will drop out even if the APU is running when certain conditions are met. Airbus may use a different system but it's probably similar to this; there's got to be an automatic trigger.
The RAT will usually power a hydraulic system indefinitely if you keep the airspeed above a certain value. Generally, that A/S is above normal landing speed, sometimes quite a bit above.
A RAT hydraulic system will run a HMG (Hydraulic Motor/Generator) indefinitely as long as the hydraulic pressure stays up (airspeed).
Rip, I kind of doubt if it was the Engineers. I'm thinking it was the Boeing lawyers. "Pilot Error" looks so much better than "manufacturer error" in court, don't you think?
Tell me, did they prescribe better training for all the poor b*stards they killed in the -135? (Talking about the hard over rudder problem here, not the incredible stupidity of putting the water injection pumps for the engines (augmented takeoff thrust) on Generator 1 & 2 assymetrically so that when they hit a bump on the runway that tripped either Gen 1 or Gen 2 only (.2 negative G trip.. that's POINT 2, 2/10ths of a G) all the water went out on one side and took them off the runway at high speed.
Yeah, engineers never screw up. Sorry, I forgot. (See Dr. Weiner quote above.)
OK, big crowd just came into the Airport Denny's... gotta go take their order.
-
I'll have the lumberjack special, please.....
Cobra
-
Lastly, although I love Boeings, the best heavy transport I ever flew was the L-1011.
Nuff' Said this is the last word. Yes and
<!S!> to Ship 728 the final delta L-1011, retired on Aug. 1. There are almost 30 L-1011s lined up side by side wing to wing out in the middle of the desert at VCV in California. There are also almost 20 more lined up in the same fashion at MHV Mojave in the desert. Check those to 3-letters at airliners.net (http://airliners.net) they are some great interesting pictures Laurinburg-Maxton is even better but i forgot the 3-letter.
-
Here's a good "user friendly" article on the 737 rudder problems: http://www.pulitzer.org/year/1997/beat-reporting/works/737-3/ (http://www.pulitzer.org/year/1997/beat-reporting/works/737-3/)
Toad:
DOH. Good point about the APU and fuel.
I know the 727 has two rudder panels with their own actuators, so the pilot has some hope if there is a hardover. Any other airliners have a setup like that?
-
Originally posted by Vruth:
All passengers were evacuated from the plane within 90 seconds.
Over 300 people got out in just 90 seconds?!?!?! WOW. That is insane.
Heh. Certification regulations (correct me if I'm wrong guys) require that an airliner full of pax be able to be completely evacuated in 45 seconds with half the doors malfunctioning.
It helps when those simulated pax are friends and family, and when they're coached to look for the doors with the cameras over them -- they're the ones that open.
Hey, doors are expensive!
[ 08-29-2001: Message edited by: Dinger ]
-
OK, Karnak, what was #1 for you?
-
Originally posted by Dinger:
OK, Karnak, what was #1 for you?
Had to be the Aloha Airlines convertible. Amazing only one flight attendant lost her life considering half the fuselage disappeared.
(http://www.aloha.net/~icarus/side2.jpg)
[ 08-30-2001: Message edited by: grizz ]
-
There was also that UAL 747 out of Honolulu that suffered explosive decompression after one of the doors blew on climbout. One guy was sucked outside through the gaping hole in the fuselage; #3 and #4 engines ingested debris and failed. They did pretty well to bring that one in.
For me, best landing as captured on a transcript, has gotta be the one associated with this picture:
(http://www.aviationpics.de/preview/damaged747.jpg)
namely,
http://aviation-safety.net/cvr/cvr_ja46e.shtml (http://aviation-safety.net/cvr/cvr_ja46e.shtml)
-
Im surprised noone has mentioned any type of Accumulator...
Do not the heavies have some form up Emergency blow down via 4000/3000 psi Accumulator?
possibly for limited flight control movments either?
hmm...
-
Highflyer I'm sure there's accumulators, but that's going to take up space and add weight. Both are no-nos on aircraft. Otherwise they'd have some big batteries or a backup diesel generator. So there's probably some small accumulators in the hydro systems.
[ 08-30-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]
-
About the only accumlators left that do anything other than precharge the system are the hydraulic brake accumulators. You still have a limited number of brake apps even if you lose the hydraulics. Pays not to cycle the anti-skid in these conditions :)
Funked, the 727 is the only one in general commercial airline use (that I recall). The 707/-135 series debuted without a powered rudder; that's why losing water injection on one side during takeoff killed several -135 crews. They quickly added the powered rudder and almost immediately started having "hard over" problems. I think that's why the 727 might have gotten a "split" system, but I really only have supposition here. By the time the 737 came out, they thought they had a handle on the actuator problem.... or not.
-
Every Hydraulic system has a hydraulic accumulator, brakes, rudder, elevator, etc... It wont work without them.
They dampen the fluid supply and provide the constant pressure the systems need for on demand operations.
The bottles are about as big as a small volley ball, maybe 5 pounds. Hardly a weight problem, unless you think 3 cases of Pepsi are critical to the flight. (they carry pry 12 cases of pop)
And yes, in fact the precharge on the brake gives you a small amount of reserve. Not much.
I did a hydraulic leak on the 737 Rudder 3 weeks ago, the system is pretty cool. Can post AMM diagrams if ya want to get comprehensive. :)
---
[ 09-01-2001: Message edited by: Creamo ]
-
Do it Creamo :)
Creamo, I think Highflyer is talking about having a BIG accumulator to store energy and give you some emergency hydraulic capability. I don't think they would do this on an airplane due to weight/space issues. Just small accumulators to improve system dynamics and response as you stated.
[ 09-01-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]
-
The F-15E has accumulators to run the canopy and start the JFS (jet fuel starter, a crummy APU substitute) and to run the emergency brakes. The blow-down system on many small jet aircraft uses a high pressure nitrogen charge. The T-37 has this for example. Some aircraft simply rely on aerodynamic loads to pull the gear and doors down.
-
Oh, cc that Funky. I go to work Tues, will hook you up with the boring details.
-
Just my opinon here but I have to go with United 232 as the best emergency landing (if you can call it a landing) of a commercial jet, given the situation. You all remember that one right? 1989 I think? Sioux City, Iowa.. DC-10 with a complete hydraulic failure. Not taking anything away from the Aloha 737 crew, but these UAL guys had no control of the plane other than the throttles.. and they got it on the runway.
Read this if youre unfamiliar : http://www.panix.com/~jac/aviation/haynes.html (http://www.panix.com/~jac/aviation/haynes.html)
-
This just in to the news desk:
Subject: Airbus says maintenance flaw likely caused fuel leak.
August 30, 2001 Airbus says maintenance flaw likely caused fuel leak Air Transat landing Graeme Hamilton National Post Faulty maintenance appears to have caused the fuel-line rupture that left an Air Transat jet carrying 306 people without power midway across the Atlantic, the plane's manufacturer said yesterday in a worldwide bulletin.
Airbus, maker of the A330 that glided for 20 minutes before landing safely on the Azores Islands Friday, said the fuel leak was caused when a fuel pipe and a hydraulic pipe feeding the right engine rubbed together.
Rolls-Royce, manufacturer of the jet's two engines, had issued a service bulletin in March, 1999, modifying the two pipes to ensure adequate clearance between them. But in a telex sent yesterday to all airlines operating the same aircraft, Airbus said the bulletin's recommendations do not appear to have been fully applied on the right engine of the Air Transat jet.
Airbus told the 20 commercial airlines flying a total of 80 A330s with the same engines to conduct inspections within 72 hours to ensure there is no interference between the two pipes "due to installation of incompatible parts." It warns that "interference and wear" between the two pipes "can result in a significant fuel leak."
A similar memo issued by Rolls-Royce said the hydraulic pipe on the Air Transat plane was an old model, pre-dating the 1999 service bulletin. Rolls-Royce said the correct pipes were installed on the Air Transat jet's left engine.
Airbus and Rolls-Royce are co-operating with officials investigating the incident and have been made privy to information from the probe. Seychelle Harding, an Air Transat spokeswoman, declined to respond to the information in the Airbus telex. She said the Montreal-based charter airline will wait until the investigation is complete before commenting on the accident's cause. She confirmed the plane's right engine had been changed four days before the mishap after a routine check detected metal filings in the engine oil. The change, which was performed by Air Transat mechanics, would have required the reconnection of the fuel and hydraulic pipes.
The rapid fuel leak and subsequent loss of power created a terrifying scene on board Air Transat Flight 236 as passengers were told to prepare for a ditching at sea when it seemed the plane would not reach the Azores. The flight out of Toronto was initially bound for Lisbon, but diverted toward the Azores when the fuel leak was detected. The plane's pilot, Captain Robert Piché, has been hailed as a hero for managing a so-called dead-stick landing that caused only minor injuries during the plane's evacuation. Bernard Landry, the Premier of Quebec, said yesterday that Capt. Piché will be honoured in the legislature. "His accomplishment is worthy of world renown," Mr. Landry said.
Investigators are trying to determine how the plane, which had been adequately fuelled before takeoff, could have lost enough fuel to cripple both engines. The plane is designed to allow fuel leaks to be isolated and valves closed to stop a leak.
An official with the Transportation Safety Board of Canada has said the statistical chance of complete engine failure on the Airbus A330 is one in a billion. The Portuguese-led investigation yesterday began analyzing data from the plane's black boxes to get a better idea of what happened to the plane.
On Tuesday, investigators reported both engines failed as a result of "fuel starvation" and that the right engine's fuel line had failed. Nick Stoss, who is in the Azores representing Canada's Transportation Safety Board, said engine changes are not unusual during maintenance of large aircraft. All possible contributing factors, from aircraft design and manufacture to maintenance and crew performance, are being examined. "We're way too early in the investigation to rule anything out," Mr. Stoss said.
In Canada, Air Canada flies eight A330s with the same Rolls-Royce engines and Air Transat flies three. Both airlines reported yesterday that they had conducted the requested inspections and found no problems.
Spokeswomen for Airbus and Rolls-Royce declined to elaborate on the bulletins sent to A330 operators.
Totally unsubstantiated rumor department:
Apparently the pilots, noting the fuel unbalance, kept trying to correct it by pumping fuel into the low side....which was of course dumped overboard when it was put on that side.
End of totally unsubstantiated rumor department
I don't think we've heard it all as yet. Time will tell.
-
Here's a pic that I said I'll show if asked by anyone. http://www.hitechcreations.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=72&t=000132 (http://www.hitechcreations.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=72&t=000132)
-
Well Airbus can go into it's own glider competition already ...
Remember the Hapag LLoyd A310 here in Vienna 1 year ago ?
Kind of scary is that with a fuel leak on one side they lost ALL fuel ?? now how would that work eh ?
Austrian had a problem a few month back with a A340 where they lost an engine (Bearing failure), and while switching fuel tanks they starved the 2 other engines on the other side ... A340 on 1 engine took em quite a while to relight No. 3 and 4.