Hey TTTYYYMMM and For Sweden

"f86sabre" (f86sabre) 06/03/2015 at 17:13 • Filed to: None

2

22

I’m a wee bit surprised at the casual nature of the comments in !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!!

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

Sure, they got the engines relit, but 25 minutes and no power? No Bueno.

For Sweden > f86sabre 06/03/2015 at 17:17

0

I declined to comment because I know absolutely nothing about the case, but yes, a huge no bueno.

CB > f86sabre 06/03/2015 at 17:18

0

You know, normally having no engines running for any amount of time when the plane is in the air is a cause for panic, especially considering that it’s been over a week since it happened and we hadn’t heard about it beforehand.

Jcarr > f86sabre 06/03/2015 at 17:19

0

I’m baffled that it hasn’t been plastered all over the news for the last 2 weeks.

CNN, I am disappoint.

Highlander-Datsuns are Forever > f86sabre 06/03/2015 at 17:33

0

Truly terrifying, I would shit myself.

uofime-2 > f86sabre 06/03/2015 at 17:40

0

can a jet that size really glide for 25mins?

The article is really vague, some times saying “flame out” other times simply saying they lost power (all power?).

ttyymmnn > f86sabre 06/03/2015 at 17:42

1

I saw that, and I’m really surprised that I heard about it on Jalopnik first, considering all the RSS feeds and squawks I receive on a daily basis. No bueno indeed, but I’m waiting for some real information on this (not to say that Collin didn’t do a good job writing it up). His W$J link is paywalled.

ttyymmnn > f86sabre 06/03/2015 at 18:05

0

I got past the WSJ paywall and read this:

“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 airline said.

ttyymmnn > For Sweden 06/03/2015 at 18:10

2

I got past the WSJ paywall and read this:

“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 airline said.

The 25 minute figure is also based on Flight 24 information, marking the moment the descent began and the moment the A330 started ascending again. It will be interesting to learn exactly what happened, if we ever do.

ttyymmnn > Jcarr 06/03/2015 at 18:28

2

I replied to Sweden and Sabre above that, if you get to the article this story was written from, you learn that while both engines quit, one was restarted almost immediately. So, it sounds like it did not fly for 25 minutes without power. On another article I read about the incident, one commenter suggests that the pilots may have had a problem with one engine and shut down the working one. That would make a lot more sense. Still, I’m surprised that I heard about this first on Jalopnik. I’m looking forward to more information.

ttyymmnn > uofime-2 06/03/2015 at 18:29

0

The article could be clearer. According to the WSJ article he linked, the plane lost both engines but refired one of them almost immediately. So it seems that they did not, in fact, fly unpowered for 25 minutes.

Coty > f86sabre 06/03/2015 at 18:41

0

That plane has Ram Air? DAAANG!

No injuries were reported on Flight 836, and firsthand accounts of the incident didn’t immediately appear across social media. This has lead some to speculate that passengers weren’t aware of the severity of the situation. While “loss of power to both engines” conjures chaotic images of oxygen masks deploying from overhead compartments, the cabin going pitch-dark and the aircraft rapidly losing altitude, in reality the engines were still windmilling and power to the aircraft’s critical systems (including cabin pressurization) would have been delivered via the auxiliary power unit (APU) or the aircraft’s Ram-Air Turbine (RAT) .

Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo > f86sabre 06/03/2015 at 20:41

0

I’ll be following this. What’s the story about the Airbus that pumped all of its fuel overboard and then landed dead stick?

f86sabre > Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo 06/03/2015 at 20:50

0

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Trans…

whoarder is tellurium > f86sabre 06/03/2015 at 21:07

0

I just cant believe they let the aircraft fly again after the incident. Something must’ve gone down like: “Well, we cant find any issues. Oh, well, it probably wont happen again...”

I understand schedules are tight and reserve ‘craft hard to come by but losing both engines mid-flight really deserves an immediate grounding until a reason is found.

f86sabre > whoarder is tellurium 06/03/2015 at 21:15

0

Who knows what they really found. If the sumped the tanks and found water they may have just pumped it out.

uofime-2 > ttyymmnn 06/03/2015 at 22:23

1

Ahhh that's much more reasonable!

You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much > ttyymmnn 06/04/2015 at 09:19

0

This incident makes a lot more sense once you learn that an engine was restarted almost immediately. The first thing that popped out at me was the descent rate. If you lose both engines on a airliner the descent rate seems like it should be a lot faster than ~500 fpm. Looking at the Wikipedia article on the Air Transat flight that you linked the descent rate was about 2,000 fpm once the second engine flamed out, and that was also an A330, though I don’t know if the planes are the same variant. At any rate the descent rates would likely vary some, but not by a factor of four.

ttyymmnn > You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much 06/04/2015 at 10:12

0

Yeah, something definitely doesn’t add up. I don’t know if I mentioned to you, but I did to others, that one theory I read was that they had a problem with one engine and shut down the good one, then restarted the good one. It’s not the first time that’s happened. I’m keeping my eye out on my RSS and squawks to see what comes up. Thing is, there’s been nothing. That’s why I think this may be a mountain out of a molehill. If there really had been 25 minutes of unpowered flight, this story would be all over the front pages.

You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much > ttyymmnn 06/04/2015 at 10:44

0

I saw that you mention the possibility that they shut down the good engine in the comments to someone else. It will be interesting to see if that is what happened, or if this is simply a case of a single engine failure and descent being reported as a double engine failure. The fact that this isn’t a huge news story makes me suspect the latter. While a single engine failure on a flight is serious, it is not unprecedented, nor is it a critical failure in most cases.

You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much > ttyymmnn 06/04/2015 at 10:53

1

The plot of airspeed is quite interesting. Only a slight dip in airspeed right at the beginning of the descent, then a slight increase while descending and airspeed was maintained a little bit higher for the remainder of the flight.

You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much > f86sabre 06/04/2015 at 11:06

1

I stumbled on this article at the Aviation Herald. From my reading of this it sounds like there was at most a very short amount of time with both engines out.

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.” The occurrence was rated a serious incident and is being investigated by SAAIB.

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 .

Emphasis at the end is mine. From other articles it sounds like plane made a return flight after only a few hours delay. I’m no expert, but it seems like an engine swap on a aircraft would need to be performed at a maintenance hangar and would take more than a few hours.

f86sabre > You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much 06/04/2015 at 12:12

0

Replacing a high bypass turbo fan on a wide body can be done in 8-12 hours by a crew that knows what they are doing and has all the tools. Question is, did they pull the engines after that flight or did they get it back home and then pull the engine.