Incident (A330) at HKG International Airport

[straitman]

Yes, and no.

When I flew the 767, the N1 for a single engined approach was roughly 68%. I'm told by people who fly the Trent 330 that the equivalent power is around 55%. So, whilst you could probably get the aircraft to decelerate (pitch, speed brake, gear, flap), you won't have enough power to fly level, but you will have way too much to fly a stable approach. The a/c will accelerate down finals. The speed brake is quite ineffective in that configuration, and the flaps, even if you had them fully extended, will eventually blow back in.

This is a difficult exercise. Making it up as you go, without the benefit of a few dozen runs in the simulator, would be very difficult.

Thanks for elaborating jb747. I should have been more specific and explained what I meant in more detail.

 

[Mal]

Cathay updated their website with more information. It's possibly the same information that milehighclub referred to earlier in this thread.

Cathay Pacific updates CX780 incident

Some excerpts:

Cathay Pacific today emphasized that at no time were both engines on CX780 from Surabaya, which made an emergency landing at Hong Kong International Airport yesterday, shut down.

He said it had been determined that the number 2 (RH) engine was at idle power throughout the approach and landing at HKIA, and the Number 1(LH) engine was operating at 70 per cent of its maximum power, and frozen at that level.

Once the pilots were told by the Fire Services Department that they had seen flames and smoke in the undercarriage, they decided to deplane the passengers and immediately alerted the cabin crew to begin the evacuation procedure.

 

[harvyk]

Once the pilots were told by the Fire Services Department that they had seen flames and smoke in the undercarriage, they decided to deplane the passengers and immediately alerted the cabin crew to begin the evacuation procedure.

Whilst I know that planes are meant to be able to have their wheels on fire for 5 minutes without any assistance from ground crews as part of it's type certification, sitting in a plane with wheels on fire in a testing situation and sitting in a plane with wheels on fire after an emergency landing would be 2 very different things.

After being relayed that information it is of no surprise that the pilots decided to evacuate.

 

[markis10]

Someone has leaked the internal crew email from CX providing a lot more info:

Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 15:38:09 +0800
Subject: CX780 SUB-HKG 13 April 2010
To All Airbus coughpit Crew,

As already covered by company news information and the public media, a major event occurred on flight CX780 Surabaya – Hong Kong on 13 April. The crew had operated the aircraft, B-HLL, on the previous evening from Hong Kong to Surabaya. Crew complement was normal with two pilots and eleven cabin crew.
Routine maintenance checks were carried out overnight. All pre-departure preparations ex SUB were normal. There was nothing unusual about the aircraft weight, FOB (CFP fuel) and distribution. RTOW data used was in accordance with the Minimum Ground roll procedure as applicable to Surabaya. Weather at departure, en-route and arrival was good and not considered to be relevant to the event.

Initial Onset Conditions
Just before TOC, the aircraft experienced minor low frequency EPR oscillations. These oscillations had associated tracking of Fuel Flow. Later, this observation was followed with an ECAM message on ENG 2. After consultation with IOC, it was decided that the situation did not warrant an in-flight diversion.

Subsequent Engine Behaviour
During initial descent (passing FL310) ENG 2 experienced a surge and stall, and the engine could only be recovered to sub-idle speed for the remainder of the flight. Whilst levelling off at an intermediate lower altitude in the latter part of the descent, ENG 1 additionally experienced a gradual loss of thrust lever control, eventually resulting in an uncontrolled thrust increase to approximately 70% N1. The engine remained at this thrust level for the remainder of the flight.
Aircraft Flight Path

The aircraft was able to maintain altitude and speed until closer to the airfield, when further descent was commenced for an ILS approach onto RWY 07L. With the high residual thrust present on No1 engine, speed on intermediate and final approach remained high. Final configuration consisted of Flap 1 (with flap lever position at Flap 2), resulting in an approach speed of 230kts at the threshold. Flare and touchdown (at 220kts) was normal for these circumstances. Successful selection of REV, and appropriate braking enabled the aircraft to be stopped within 1,000ft of the threshold of RWY 25R.

After Landing
After the aircraft came to a stop, both engines were shut down (thrust on Eng 1 had remained at 70% N1). Brake temperatures rose rapidly. Comms were established with rescue services who advised tyre deflation and the presence of smoke/fire around the wheels. An emergency evacuation was successfully carried out with minor injuries to a small number of passengers.
Crew Actions
The Captain and First Officer both displayed commendable professionalism and airmanship of the highest order in successfully handling the challenging situation they faced.

Initial Investigations
CAD is conducting the investigation into this event, supported by CSD. An initial interview with the flight crew by CAD has taken place. EEC, QAR, and DFDR data have been successfully downloaded and are being analysed. All avenues of investigation, including fuel system fault and contamination, are being actively conducted with direct assistance and involvement from Airbus, and Rolls Royce.
Rolls Royce and Airbus have not issued any additional operational recommendations at this time. Updates on the investigation will be provided to all crew as soon as more information becomes available.
In the interim, crews are advised to contact Maintenance Control via IOC, if any abnormal engine behaviour is observed.

Kind Regards,

Steve Mihos & Gavin Haslemore
Airbus Fleet Office


Well done to the crew is all I can say, they deserve but are unlikely to get a significant payrise IMHO.

 

[Sprucegoose]

Ch 7 reporting possible fuel contamination from the previous stop.

it was surabaya!!!

 

[Mal]

Initial Accident Bulletin from the Civil Aviation Department in Hong Kong has been published and is here:

http://www.cad.gov.hk/reports/AB-01-2010e.pdf

 

[samh004]

Initial Accident Bulletin from the Civil Aviation Department in Hong Kong has been published and is here:

http://www.cad.gov.hk/reports/AB-01-2010e.pdf

I read it all, but other than interesting reading, there’s nothing new in that.

 

[jb747]

I read it all, but other than interesting reading, there’s nothing new in that.

At 0519 hr, during the descent to FL230 at about 110 nautical miles southeast of VHHH, CPA 780 had the ECAM messages “ENG 1 CTL SYS FAULT” and “ENG 2 STALL” annunciated within a short period of time.

At 0530 hr, when the aircraft was approximately 45 nautical miles southeast from VHHH and was about to level off at 8,000 feet above mean sea level (AMSL), ECAM message “ENG 1 STALL” was annunciated. The flight crew carried out the ECAM actions.

A stalled engine is producing no power. So, effectively, they have lost the #2 engine to a stall, and it has failed to recover, and later the #1 engine succumbs as well. Whilst Cathay have said that at no time were both engines shut down, I would certainly consider that to be a dual engine failure...at least until the #1 engine recovered from the stall.

The ECAM actions for a Trent engined 380 (which I would assume would be more or less the same as the 330 actions):
Thrust lever IDLE
Engine parameters CHECK

If abnormal

Engine Master OFF
Engine relight Consider

If relight unsuccessful:
Engine shutdown procedure

Whilst we don't know whether the stall of #1 required the engine to be shutdown and restarted (as that is covered in the simple phrase "carried out the ECAM actions"), the subsequent behaviour of the engine is anything but normal, and in an isolated case would have certainly resulted in it being shutdown, and perhaps restarted.

 

[docjames]

At 0519 hr, during the descent to FL230 at about 110 nautical miles southeast of VHHH, CPA 780 had the ECAM messages “ENG 1 CTL SYS FAULT” and “ENG 2 STALL” annunciated within a short period of time.

At 0530 hr, when the aircraft was approximately 45 nautical miles southeast from VHHH and was about to level off at 8,000 feet above mean sea level (AMSL), ECAM message “ENG 1 STALL” was annunciated. The flight crew carried out the ECAM actions.

A stalled engine is producing no power. So, effectively, they have lost the #2 engine to a stall, and it has failed to recover, and later the #1 engine succumbs as well. Whilst Cathay have said that at no time were both engines shut down, I would certainly consider that to be a dual engine failure...at least until the #1 engine recovered from the stall.

The ECAM actions for a Trent engined 380 (which I would assume would be more or less the same as the 330 actions):
Thrust lever IDLE
Engine parameters CHECK

If abnormal

Engine Master OFF
Engine relight Consider

If relight unsuccessful:
Engine shutdown procedure

Whilst we don't know whether the stall of #1 required the engine to be shutdown and restarted (as that is covered in the simple phrase "carried out the ECAM actions"), the subsequent behaviour of the engine is anything but normal, and in an isolated case would have certainly resulted in it being shutdown, and perhaps restarted.

The whole scenario is certianly strange, I hope they do find a definitive (read: fixable) cause or causes (unlike the QF 330 incident, and of course, so far, the AF 330 incident).

 

[UP4014]

More engines the better! (although poor fuel wouldn't help that either)

 

[jb747]

More engines the better! (although poor fuel wouldn't help that either)

Wait and see. Whilst fuel is being bandied around, and is, I guess, something obvious, it just strikes me as a bit odd that the problem hadn't come up on any other aircraft. And the aircraft's subsequent behaviour isn't quite in accord with what I would have expected either.

Fuel may well be a player in the event, but I'll bet it turns out to be a number of converging circumstances.

 

[oz_mark]

Just an update on this

HONG KONG (Dow Jones)--Fuel contamination was the likely cause of both engines on a Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd. (0293.HK) jet malfunctioning as it approached Hong Kong's airport in April, the city's civil aviation department said Wednesday.

[--snip--]

The government department said in an update to its investigation on the incident that it found spherical particles in parts of the aircraft's engines, as well as in fuel samples collected from the engines and fuel tanks.

HK Government: Fuel Contamination Likely Cause Of Cathay Engine Malfunction - WSJ.com