Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Singapore Airlines Airbus A330 loses power on both engines briefly SIN-PVG

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Singapore Airlines Airbus A330 loses power on both engines briefly SIN-PVG

    Aviation Herald - News, Incidents and Accidents in Aviation


    Wow

  • #2
    Seems like questionable judgement flying into weather severe enough to stop the engines. But at least now we know what happens when an a/c encounters such weather at altitude and the crew does not pull up relentlessly...
    Be alert! America needs more lerts.

    Eric Law

    Comment


    • #3
      I wonder if continuous ignition or engine anti ice was selected on. One of the few things AF447 did right.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by elaw View Post
        Seems like questionable judgement flying into weather severe enough to stop the engines.
        Do you mean that the CVR recorded something like this?

        - Oh, look. It seems that the weather ahead is severe enough that it can stop the engines.
        - No problem. Let's fly into it.

        I can assure you that had the crew suspected that the weather they were going to fly into could cause this, they would not have done so.

        Remember that AF, for example, didn't fly into any significant weather (but above it).

        Besides... Do we know already that it was the weather?
        Maybe it was fuel mismanagement?
        Maybe volcanic ashes?
        Maybe it was ice crystals in the fuel that clogged the oil-fuel heat exchanger? The engines were Trent, not the same but similar to those in the BA 777.

        --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
        --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

        Comment


        • #5
          Seriously?

          The crew of Delta 191 knew there was severe weather ahead, they thought it was not severe enough to cause a problem, and they were wrong (in that particular case, weather vs. their skillset and the weather won).

          Southern 242 is even closer to this story. Crew knew there was nastiness ahead but flew right into it, and the result was flamed-out engines (and other damage to the a/c), and in that case a crash.

          Actually my first thought when I saw this was volcanic ash, but I can't imagine in that case the plane would have departed again carrying pax with the same engines. I know in the case of BA flight 9 the engines were so damaged that three had to be replaced before it could even be ferried.
          Be alert! America needs more lerts.

          Eric Law

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by elaw View Post
            The crew of Delta 191 knew there was severe weather ahead, they thought it was not severe enough to cause a problem, and they were wrong (in that particular case, weather vs. their skillset and the weather won).
            Careful...

            They did not know there was severe weather ahead- just a lightning-producing towering cumulus. There's a dude with a username of Delta 191 who is bent all out of shape that the NWS radar dude was on dinner break (...and I agree about 75% with him!)

            Delta 191 (the flight) was an old-fashioned, afternoon, pop-up, airmass thundershower that airliners "see" all the time, and no comparison to AA-Little-Rock with a severe thunderstorm warning in effect as the gust front hit the airport.

            That being said, it was in Texas and everything is bigger in Texas, AND all Texas jokes aside, a Texas afternoon thundershower is indeed something different than a Miami afternoon thundershower. A lot more crazy mixing of dry and moist air to support evaporative cooling and downbursts and hail...
            Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by elaw View Post
              Southern 242 is even closer to this story. Crew knew there was nastiness ahead but flew right into it, and the result was flamed-out engines (and other damage to the a/c), and in that case a crash.
              Again, can't quite Concur.

              They were using on-board radar to choose a lighter spot in the storm to traverse.

              Unfortunately it was old fashioned black & white RADAR that attenuated in extreme rainfall and (speculating) they may not have been trained quite as well as they should to detect attenuation.

              Again, despite our professional forumites who swear off thunderstorm encounters, the data says they are pretty common- and I have at least two personal occasions of being pretty intimate to thunderstorms somewhere around row 28.

              And again some severe-thunderstorm/tornado-warning information existed with the NWS that was not conveyed to Southern 242.
              Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

              Comment


              • #8
                If the BEA wanted to be confusing, great work!

                On Jun 2nd 2015 the French BEA reported in their weekly bulletin: "During cruise at FL390, ENG 1 stalled and self-recovered, then ENG 2 stalled. ENG 1 was shut down. Aircraft descended to FL260. ENG 1 relight was successful. Aircraft proceeded to Shanghai without further incident."
                So if we take it literally the sequence of events would be:

                Eng 1 stalled
                Eng 1 self-recovered
                Eng 2 stalled (and never recovered)
                Eng 1 was shut down (by mistake in place of #2?)
                Eng 1 was relighted.
                Instead of diverting to the nearest airport, aircraft proceeded to it's destination flying for more tha 1 hour and a half with one engine stalled and the other one (which had stalled, recovered, been shut down and been relighted) working?

                --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                Comment


                • #9
                  Now, this makes more sense, but flying 1 hour and a half after this very serious series of events? How sure they were that there was nothing wrong with the engines?

                  Aviation Herald - News, Incidents and Accidents in Aviation

                  An Airbus notification to A330 operators reported the event occurred when the aircraft was maneouvering to avoid adverse weather and suggested based on preliminary flight data analysis, that over a period of 13 seconds engine #1 stalled twice and recovered itsself, engine #2 stalled thrice recovering itsself each time, engine #1 was commanded to shut down shortly after. A #1 engine restart at FL370 did not succeed, the aircraft descended to FL260 where the #1 engine restart was successful. Engine continuous ignition was on, wing anti ice on, nacelle anti ice off. Both engines were examined including borescopic examination without any findings, both engines were declared servicable, engine #1 however was removed from the aircraft for a precautionary de-pairing of the engines.

                  --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                  --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    An Airbus notification to A330 operators reported the event occurred when the aircraft was maneouvering to avoid adverse weather and suggested based on preliminary flight data analysis, that over a period of 13 seconds engine #1 stalled twice and recovered itsself, engine #2 stalled thrice recovering itsself each time, engine #1 was commanded to shut down shortly after. A #1 engine restart at FL370 did not succeed, the aircraft descended to FL260 where the #1 engine restart was successful. Engine continuous ignition was on, wing anti ice on, nacelle anti ice off. Both engines were examined including borescopic examination without any findings, both engines were declared servicable, engine #1 however was removed from the aircraft for a precautionary de-pairing of the engines.
                    Isn't that a bit strange? There are two reasons continuous ignition would be on: either they selected it on manually or they selected the engine anti-ice on and then FADEC selected continuous ignition automatically. Engine anti-ice was off, so they must have selected continuous ingition manually. So why would they do that and select wing anti-ice but not engine anti-ice? Seems like pilot error...

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Don't some FADECs automatically turn on continuous ignition in certain circumstances? I thought some had the ability to detect when a flameout was likely to occur and would enable it without pilot intervention.

                      The thing that stands out to me here is the crew trying to restart #1 at FL370. I thought most if not all jet engines had an altitude limit for restart that's usually somewhere in the 20's, and have seen a number of reports of engines being damaged by restart attempts at too-high altitudes - Pinnacle 3701 being one that comes to mind.
                      Be alert! America needs more lerts.

                      Eric Law

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by elaw View Post
                        Don't some FADECs automatically turn on continuous ignition in certain circumstances?
                        Yes.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X