Bu web site tanımlama bilgileri kullanmaktadır. Bu web siteyi kullanarak ve bu sitede gezinerek, bunu kabul etmiş olursunuz.
Kapat
FlightAware uçuş takibinin reklamlarla desteklendiğini biliyor muydunuz?
FlightAware.com'dan gelen reklamlara izin vererek FlightAware'in ücretsiz kalmasını sağlamamıza yardım edebilirsiniz. harika bir deneyim sunmak adına reklamlarımızı anlamlı ve öne çıkmayacak şekilde tutmak için yoğun şekilde çalışıyoruz. FlightAware'deki whitelist adsreklamları güvenilir olarak görmek hızlı ve kolaydır, veya lütfen premium hesaplarımıza geçmeyi düşünün.
Kapat
Back to Squawk list
  • 61

Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Inflight Dual Engine Failure

eklendi
 
A Brussels Airlines Airbus A330-223, performing flight SN358 from Kinshasa to Brussels, suffered failures on both engines at different stages of its journey. As the aircraft reached its cruising altitude of 40,000ft over Algerian airspace, the number-one engine failed. The flight crew managed to re-ignite the failed engine and decided to continue its original route to Brussels. The aircraft suffered yet another engine failure as it descended towards Belgian airspace. “When in descending towards… (airwaysmag.com) Daha Fazlası...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


linbb
linbb 28
Turns out there were two engine problems not dual failures meaning both failed at the same time. Kind of think it was luck on this one as they should have landed at the closest airport that would support there landing rather than continue on. Luck was with them this time.
bbabis
Bill Babis 14
Agreed. Fuel contamination should always be suspected with an unexplained flameout. Then a landing at the nearest suitable airport.
Moviela
Ric Wernicke 2
Fuel contamination in Africa? How is that possible? It is such a politically stable continent without a hint of corruption. You know the oil refineries are built with the finest equipment and operated by highly skilled engineers. And you'd be crazy if you thought Jet A sold South of the Med was as good as that available on the North shore.
Highflyer1950
Highflyer1950 3
Agreed. It only takes 5 min to get a fuel sample right at the truck or transfer vehicle and test it! I even asked for a sample in India and Russia as well.
flyzoe
Ric, Thanks for your comment. You are ever so right.
shoalwaters
Mike Webb 12
If an engine stops in flight, shouldn't the aircraft land immediately, unless the flight crew are ABSOLUTELY certain of the cause? Sounds like "Hmm, an engine has stopped, lets keep our fingers crossed that it is nothing serious".
ravenshammer
ravenshammer 0
Considering where they were flying, landing in some of the fly over countries might be more dangerous than just flying over them with one engine. I'm sure some of the passengers were grateful they didn't land in Turkey or worse places.
racerxx
racerxx 3
In Turkey, huh?
philipvansteenkiste
The failure was indeed caused by heavy contaminated fuel taken at refueling at Luanda Angola. The plane is still grounded and the entire fuel system had to be cleansed and reinspected. A plane from Air France seems to been hit with the same problem also caused by the same contaminated fuel at refueling at Luanda Angola in the same period.
xairbusdriver
Jim Smirh 6
Been awhile since I retired, but in the US (and its flagged carriers), a two or three engine aircraft was required to land "at nearest suitable" when one engine quit. Four engine aircraft could continue even with one shutdown. No rules needed for single engine models. ;) Rules for other countries may be different. Of course, 20/20 hindsight is hardly ever available in the instant... but crew was most probably in contact with MX (and maybe even AB and/or the engine builder) before ALL agreed to continue.

Fuel contamination is certainly possible, but there could be two completely different problems. An engine that shut down because of a contaminated/clogged filter is not likely to relight.
kenish
kenish 5
Back in the 90's I was on a 744 (United) from LAX-HKG. They had to shut down #4 and landed in TPE instead of continuing.

The annoying followup is TPE was my destination after connecting thru HKG, so I arrived early! I did not have checked luggage for the 3-day business trip. But I could not leave due to some immigration/passport technicality. We waited about 10 hours in a cordoned off area of the terminal for a relief aircraft to be flown in and take us to HKG. I finally arrived back in TPE 30 hours later, into the SAME gate our diverted flight used!
PaulDonner
Paul Donner 1
I recall in 1980 on a 747 flight out of Miami to Heathrow (I believe it was TWA) we lost one engine somewhere over the atlantic and we diverted to Kennedy for the night. Airline paid for dinner and hotel. Of course when we finally arrived in London it was 1 or 2am.
xairbusdriver
Jim Smirh 1
Yes, losing ANY engine over *water* is a bit more important than over (most) land areas with dozens of possible landing locations. :) One of the main reasons for ETOPS.
ewrcap
David Beattie -1
Read up on history. Taiwan and China don’t get along too well! That is why we would never divert there unless it was an emergency which, of course, this was.
ElliotCannon
Elliot Cannon 4
Regardless of the failure, the transition from four engines to two wasn't done to improve safety, it was done to improve profits. This is especially problematic when over the ocean. Now you are in a single engine airplane and like a friend of mine once said,"you are now lower and slower than before the failure, the water is really cold and the fish are bigger than you are".LOL
JimHeslop
Jim Heslop 3
It seems to me that some of these airlines/pilots from other countries just dont get it. In my mind, an emergency declaration should be an automatic flight cancellation. Period. Once declared, that aircraft should be deemed unsafe to fly and must land, pulled from service until a full inspection in regards to the emergency clears it to once again be airworthy.
lecompte2
lecompte2 2
Seen this before where the fuel lacked the proper additives for cold temperatures at high altitudes and long flights. The last item in the checklist suggest's landing at nearest suitable airport ? Was the pilot ordered to continue by a bean counter ?
ewrcap
David Beattie 4
The pilot in command has final authority over the operation of the aircraft, period.
lecompte2
lecompte2 1
Nice to hear, but the flight deck is more and more invaded by people that want to influence the pilot. I know I was in one for close to 40 years
PaulDonner
Paul Donner 2
Unbelievable. Very poor judgement not to divert. Second engine failure proves the point.
Hiltonconroy
Hilton Conroy 3
The authorities should be demanding answers as to why the crew decided to press on after two engine failures. Looks like commercial pressures at work again and the risk to passengers was increased. Lucky the engines didn't fail on final
joelwiley
joel wiley 4
Well, one failed upon approach, and there wasn't many alternatives. The authorities should be demanding answers as to what the crew pressed on after the FIRST one.
Hiltonconroy
Hilton Conroy 1
I agree entirely with you...
kneafseym
This reminded me of an old joke you have all heard...To save some typing as everyone knows the old joke, just the punch line. "now we will be up here all day". If you need the whole joke, just ask.
kenish
kenish 8
...or the B-52 that requested to be expedited due to an engine shutdown. Controller- "Cleared for the dreaded 7-engine approach!"
sgbelverta
sharon bias 3
As someone who lived under the flight path of Mather AFB where B52's were stationed, I can say that any approach was dreaded. But take-off's were much worse.
TorstenHoff
Torsten Hoff 5
MH370, are you there?

(crickets)
royhunte92
Roy Hunte 1
He cries when there is a problem with an Airbus.
btweston
btweston 8
To be fair, you both look pretty silly.
dc3orbust
dc3orbust 0
bweston,
For the regular folks here, this comment rings great humor. Hang around a while and you'll pick up on MH370's theme yourself. No one waves the pom poms for Airbus more than this fella.
TorstenHoff
Torsten Hoff 1
Worse, he takes every opportunity to take a shot at Boeing and pretends that problems with Airbus aircraft don't exist. He's not an agnostic aviation fan, he's simply a Airbus fanboy.
linbb
linbb -2
Oh goodness thought he posted this, my bad, didn't know airbust ever had any problems.
joelwiley
joel wiley 5
From the Gospel according to MH370, it is impossible for 'Airbus' and 'problem' to be in the same paragraph. Incidents such as these are actually sabotage events done by nefarious Boeing moles.
ewrcap
David Beattie 1
Were these Rolls Royce engines?
jptq63
jptq63 1
Any info on whose engines? I.e. General Electric CF6, Pratt & Whitney PW4000, or Rolls-Royce Trent 700.
LethalThreat
LethalThreat 2
From the picture it looks like PW4168's.
jptq63
jptq63 1
Thank you.
AlainDuhamel
Alain Duhamel 1
The authorities should be demanding answers as to why the crew decided to press on after two engine failures. Looks like commercial pressures at work again and the risk to passengers was increased. Lucky the engines didn't fail on final
Répondre ↓•Permalien•Report
hpren19
Anyone question third world service?
They had not been in the best part of the world.
julianjim
jim garrity 1
My "Pucker" suction would be at 100%!
silcalifano
If there was fuel contamination, who was doing their fuel quality audits? All fuel facilities are very careful about fuel contamination and save fuel filter materials to show no contamination. I would like to see the fuel truck that delivered the fuel or the underground tanks, if that was the delivery system.
gassler
gassler 4
All pertinent questions... have you ever been to Kinshasa? The location and practices there make your questions all the more relevant!
joelwiley
joel wiley 2
If true, then the appropriate solution would be to head to the nearest airport. The question becomes 'who made the decision to continue to destination?". If it was corporate, would the decision have been the same if the 'decider' had been in seat 37B?
timofthedeep
Tim Hollars 1
Both engines? I would look at a contaminated Fuel problem.
AWAAlum
AWAAlum 1
There was an angel aboard Brussels Airlines Flight SN358 that day.
ewrcap
David Beattie 2
Yes, she’s a flight attendant.
AWAAlum
AWAAlum 1
I'm sorry ... what about the FA?
birtsjoe
Joe Birts 0
Article also said leak caused tanks to empty out. That doesn't make much sense since one engine was still operating.
Still, would think they should have landed after the 1st flame out.
Bernie20910
Bernie20910 5
That was the Air Transat flight 236 incident.
JimHeslop
Jim Heslop 1
Ya, I was kind of wondering why that was even brought up as a comparison. Sort of made it seem like the two were being made the same as one.

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

Giriş

Hesabınız yok mu? Kişiselleştirilmiş özellikler, uçuş uyarıları ve daha fazlası için şimdi (ücretsiz) üye olun!