Brussels Airlines - two engine failures

Same mechanic ? Same fuel truck ?
 
Isn't the 330 able to take off, climb, cruise, descend and land on one engine.??

Doesn't mean it should be done though.
 
Based on Katamarino's Africa thread, maybe the nearest suitable landing airport wasn't any closer than flying across the Med anyway? By then maybe they're like screw it, we're almost already there. Didn't look at the flight path to see if turning around was a viable option.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk
 
"The aircraft’s left one was shut down as it traveled through French airspace, descending from 40,000ft to 28,000ft to continue its journey to Belgium."

Is this common when there's a problem? I would think that if it's running, why shut it down and screw up a good thing?
 
"However, the flight crew managed to re-ignite the failed engine and decided to continue its original route to Brussels." The crew should be fired. The problem was a "maintenance error" that caused a leak that emptied the fuel tanks. This one could have been bad because the crew had a case of "getthereitis".
 
PaulS said:
"However, the flight crew managed to re-ignite the failed engine and decided to continue its original route to Brussels." The crew should be fired. The problem was a "maintenance error" that caused a leak that emptied the fuel tanks. This one could have been bad because the crew had a case of "getthereitis".
Click to expand...
What does the QRH say? Maybe continuing to Brussels may have been the most suitable airport? Having only done an engine relight in the sim, it’s really a non issue. Don’t be so quick to pass judgement.
 
PaulS said:
"However, the flight crew managed to re-ignite the failed engine and decided to continue its original route to Brussels." The crew should be fired.
Click to expand...
Fired? Sounds a bit harsh. Maybe retraining. Sim rides. Additional checkride. Fired seems a stretch unless they were willfully negligent.

PaulS said:
The problem was a "maintenance error" that caused a leak that emptied the fuel tanks. This one could have been bad because the crew had a case of "getthereitis".
Click to expand...
Good thing you can't get fired from PoA for making mistakes. I don't know where you got this conclusion, but the article never said that this was the cause of the Brussels Airlines engine shutdown.
 
PaulS said:
"However, the flight crew managed to re-ignite the failed engine and decided to continue its original route to Brussels." The crew should be fired. The problem was a "maintenance error" that caused a leak that emptied the fuel tanks. This one could have been bad because the crew had a case of "getthereitis".
Click to expand...

They were drawing a parallel to a similar but different incident. The after-landing investigation is from the similar one, not the Brussels Airlines A330.
 
Sluggo63 said:
Fired? Sounds a bit harsh. Maybe retraining. Sim rides. Additional checkride. Fired seems a stretch unless they were willfully negligent.

Good thing you can't get fired from PoA for making mistakes. I don't know where you got this conclusion, but the article never said that this was the cause of the Brussels Airlines engine shutdown.
Click to expand...

You don't have responsibility for up to a couple hundred people's lives on POA. It doesn't matter what the cause was, they should have landed, this is reinforced by the fact that the other engine shutdown "several times" later in the flight, something was seriously wrong with the airplane, why continue? Get on the ground and get it sorted. This case was very poor decision making by the crew of this aircraft. We as pilots need to stop being so tolerant of serious problems with our equipment. An engine stopping with no explanation is a serious problem.
 
PaulS said:
You don't have responsibility for up to a couple hundred people's lives on POA. It doesn't matter what the cause was, they should have landed, this is reinforced by the fact that the other engine shutdown "several times" later in the flight, something was seriously wrong with the airplane, why continue? Get on the ground and get it sorted. This case was very poor decision making by the crew of this aircraft. We as pilots need to stop being so tolerant of serious problems with our equipment. An engine stopping with no explanation is a serious problem.
Click to expand...
What does the QRH say? On the CRJ, if we have a successful relight, the checklist doesn’t say we need to do anything else so we can continue on to our destination if we want. If I’m reading the article correctly, the first engine failure happened over Algeria and were getting ready to divert when they had a successful relight. You don’t know what their QRH says. Maybe it says if successful, continue. Or maybe it still tells them to divert. The second engine failed as they were near French airspace and they were already descending into Brussels which may have been the most suitable airport to land. Closest airport and suitable airport are not the same. We go through the QRH methodically and slowly and make sure all of our ducks are aligned so we don’t make a rash decision. Just my .01 cents after being a 121 captain for almost a year. Lots of stuff I’m still learning about!
 
jordane93 said:
What does the QRH say? On the CRJ, if we have a successful relight, the checklist doesn’t say we need to do anything else so we can continue on to our destination if we want. If I’m reading the article correctly, the first engine failure happened over Algeria and were getting ready to divert when they had a successful relight. You don’t know what their QRH says. Maybe it says if successful, continue. Or maybe it still tells them to divert. The second engine failed as they were near French airspace and they were already descending into Brussels which may have been the most suitable airport to land. Closest airport and suitable airport are not the same.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what the QRH says. But if an engine shuts down and I have no idea why, I'm not trusting that engine, screw the QRH, the captain as the ultimate say regardless of what the checklists say. Sounds like they may have had contaminated fuel, which could have resulted in 2 engines shutdown over the ocean. They were very lucky in my opinion. ETOPS. Engines turn or passengers swim.
 
PaulS said:
I have no idea what the QRH says. But if an engine shuts down and I have no idea why, I'm not trusting that engine, screw the QRH, the captain as the ultimate say regardless of what the checklists say. Sounds like they may have had contaminated fuel, which could have resulted in 2 engines shutdown over the ocean. They were very lucky in my opinion. ETOPS. Engines turn or passengers swim.
Click to expand...
But that’s the thing with the QRH. It helps you think methodically instead of making rash decisions. When the bells and whistles are going off, you have to take time and process the situation. You also have to keep in mind terrain and drift down altitude. The first engine quit somewhere over Algeria. Are there mountains? Will the driftdown altitude give us enough clearance above terrain? Run the QRH and it will tell exactly them what needs to be done. Should they have diverted the first time? Maybe. We don’t know all the details yet so again don’t be so quick to pass judgement on the crew and blame it on “getthereitis” when you really have no evidence that that was the case.
 
jordane93 said:
What does the QRH say? On the CRJ, if we have a successful relight, the checklist doesn’t say we need to do anything else so we can continue on to our destination if we want. If I’m reading the article correctly, the first engine failure happened over Algeria and were getting ready to divert when they had a successful relight. You don’t know what their QRH says. Maybe it says if successful, continue. Or maybe it still tells them to divert. The second engine failed as they were near French airspace and they were already descending into Brussels which may have been the most suitable airport to land. Closest airport and suitable airport are not the same. We go through the QRH methodically and slowly and make sure all of our ducks are aligned so we don’t make a rash decision. Just my .01 cents after being a 121 captain for almost a year. Lots of stuff I’m still learning about!
Click to expand...
Actually it says that the second engine was "shut down as it traveled through French airspace, descending from 40,000ft to 28,000ft to continue its journey to Belgium.". Is this something they would actually do purposefully? I'm not in the airlines but I can't believe a QRH (whatever that is) says to shut down a good engine.
 
jordane93 said:
But that’s the thing with the QRH. It helps you think methodically instead of making rash decisions. When the bells and whistles are going off, you have to take time and process the situation. You also have to keep in mind terrain and drift down altitude. The first engine quit somewhere over Algeria. Are there mountains? Will the driftdown altitude give us enough clearance above terrain? Run the QRH and it will tell exactly them what needs to be done. Should they have diverted the first time? Maybe. We don’t know all the details yet so again don’t be so quick to pass judgement on the crew and blame it on “getthereitis” when you really have no evidence that that was the case.
Click to expand...

After the engine died, they were diverting to another airport, they restarted the engine, then flew another 4 hours, encountering more issues near their destination. They were very lucky, and while hindsight is a great thing, I believe they made the wrong decision, they should have landed and figured it out on the ground. Hopefully more will be published about this incident, but since no one was injured it probably won't be.
 
lancie00 said:
Actually it says that the second engine was "shut down as it traveled through French airspace, descending from 40,000ft to 28,000ft to continue its journey to Belgium.". Is this something they would actually do purposefully? I'm not in the airlines but I can't believe a QRH (whatever that is) says to shut down a good engine.
Click to expand...

From the article:
"As noted on the aviation safety site, the aircraft suffered yet another engine failure as it descended towards Belgian airspace. “When in descending towards Brussels, at 05:37 hours, engine no. 2 failed several times.”"

I think the decision to shut down the engines was not the crews, but a problem with the engines or the fuel.
 
The article is poorly written and the timeline of the engine failures and shutdowns make little sense. I'd look for a more accurate version before passing too harsh of a judgment on the crew.
 
SkyDog58 said:
The article is poorly written and the timeline of the engine failures and shutdowns make little sense. I'd look for a more accurate version before passing too harsh of a judgment on the crew.
Click to expand...

Yes, fired was maybe too strong, but I still think they should have diverted and landed. Maybe there was a payment due on the airplane.
 
PaulS said:
Yes, fired was maybe too strong, but I still think they should have diverted and landed. Maybe there was a payment due on the airplane.
Click to expand...

My initial impression without better info is that a diversion might have been a good idea but divert to where? Which of the nearby airports were suitable and what defines suitable? Is it the ability of the airplane to execute a safe landing on that airport or the availability of infrastructure to affect repairs and then depart again? How about the availability of emergency equipment at the airport? If there wasn't an absolute emergency such as a fire or decompression but just a single engine failure, which for most of the time frame in question was the case, would you rather land in North Africa or Europe? If you were at 40,000' over northern Algeria approaching the Mediterranean, where would you divert to if PIC under those circumstances? Keep in mind that at the time they made their decision to continue, they had restarted #1 and #2 had yet to display any issues. I'd most likely lean towards Europe. Then again, I don't fly the heavy jets and I am just a low time private pilot. Even with my maintenance experience on airliners and my time in MOC helping to make such decisions, I defer to the crew's judgment in absence of damning evidence that points at an error on their part.

Belgium flight.JPG
 
SkyDog58 said:
My initial impression without better info is that a diversion might have been a good idea but divert to where? Which of the nearby airports were suitable and what defines suitable? Is it the ability of the airplane to execute a safe landing on that airport or the availability of infrastructure to affect repairs and then depart again? How about the availability of emergency equipment at the airport? If there wasn't an absolute emergency such as a fire or decompression but just a single engine failure, which for most of the time frame in question was the case, would you rather land in North Africa or Europe? If you were at 40,000' over northern Algeria approaching the Mediterranean, where would you divert to if PIC under those circumstances? Keep in mind that at the time they made their decision to continue, they had restarted #1 and #2 had yet to display any issues. I'd most likely lean towards Europe. Then again, I don't fly the heavy jets and I am just a low time private pilot. Even with my maintenance experience on airliners and my time in MOC helping to make such decisions, I defer to the crew's judgment in absence of damning evidence that points at an error on their part.

View attachment 70489
Click to expand...

Well, I’m seeing Nice, Malpensa, Charles DeGaule, etc. all with excellent facilities and runways. My opinion stands, get it SAFELY on the ground


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Multiple engine failures is certain to be caused due to either a fuel system issue such as fuel contanimation (most common) or more rarely the shop did some mandatory maintenance to all the engines incorrectly.
 
jordane93 said:
But that’s the thing with the QRH. It helps you think methodically instead of making rash decisions. When the bells and whistles are going off, you have to take time and process the situation. You also have to keep in mind terrain and drift down altitude. The first engine quit somewhere over Algeria. Are there mountains? Will the driftdown altitude give us enough clearance above terrain? Run the QRH and it will tell exactly them what needs to be done. Should they have diverted the first time? Maybe. We don’t know all the details yet so again don’t be so quick to pass judgement on the crew and blame it on “getthereitis” when you really have no evidence that that was the case.
Click to expand...

Here's a bit of wisdom on the qrh imparted by a checkairman I had, he walks in the room takes the qrh and drops it on the floor and then said,"doesn't fly real well does it". It's a guide, follow sops but be a pilot. I know Airbus hates that, but if sully had followed the qrh he would have been in deep kimcee. Start the APU is STILL on page three.I won't question their choice of diversion airport, their diversion guide will give them the info they need, but to continue on for hours with an unexplained uncommanded shutdown is bad decision making.
 
Back in the day I remember a b52 ripping the fueling nozzle off of a kc135. Rather than aborting and returning to its base the crew decided to continue on to the Azores. The shyt hit the fan when they got there. Guess the powers at sac didn’t think it was a good idea to continue with parts, from another aircraft, attached to your airframe... the thing looked like a camouflaged, winged unicorn...
 
This info is from a news article that I would place a little more credence to than say, CNN. Too many unknowns here, weather at various airports is included in the 'suitable' airport definition along with other things. I don't know what company procedures are or what their QRH says. I can't say anything for or against what they did until much more is known.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top