Brussels Airlines Airbus A330 suffers dual engine failure
Investigators have released information to the public about an incident that occurred with a Brussels Airlines Airbus A330-200 that lost power in both of its engines.
The aircraft, registration OO-SFU, was performing flight SN358 from Kinshasa to Brussels on the 10th of December when the pilots received an Electronic Centralized Aircraft Monitor (ECAM) notification stating the left hand engine had failed/shutdown.
Upon notification, the pilots reduced their cruising altitude from 40,000 feet to below 27,000 feet to comply with single engine operation guidelines. Diversion options were put in place and a PAN-PAN was declared to air traffic control.
After completing all necessary actions, the pilots were able to relight the engine and progress with the flight, climbing back up to their desired cruising altitude.
No further issues came to the attention of the pilots for the duration of the flight until the approach phase, where the right hand engine failed while descending. The engine continued to relight and shutdown automatically, however was powered upon touchdown.
Additional information is limited and the airline is still carrying out checks to identify any damage within the engines and aircraft systems. The investigators are listing this incident as serious and will continue to work with the airline and its associated crews as well as Airbus.
The aircraft involved is powered by two Pratt and Whitney PW4168A engines and was delivered to the airline in 2013, however was manufactured in late 1999. In between manufacture and Brussels Airlines, airlines such as Lufthansa, Swiss International and the now non-existent Air Australia operated the aircraft.
Due to the extreme rarity of dual engine failures, investigators and the airline are suspecting fuel contamination from Kinshasa.
A notable incident to refer to regarding dual engine failure on an Airbus A330 is Air Transat flight 236, where both of the Rolls-Royce Trent 700 engines flamed out due to fuel starvation. The pilots were able to successfully glide the aircraft down to an air base, however causing substantial damage to the aircraft due to the reduced hydraulic and electronic equipment required for braking.
Investigations highlighted improper maintenance caused a fuel leak, which was worsened when the pilots tried to correct a fuel imbalance warning using the cross feed system.
Although this Brussels Airlines flight did not suffer from a fuel leak, the circumstances are similar, with power being lost to both of the engines, causing uncertainty in the pilots flying the aircraft, hence why this incident is regarded as serious.
Mike once one engine shut why didn’t the pilot land the plane so as to examine the cause what if shuts again in higher altitude
Wow
Thanks for putting you IG address in your post script. I’ve started to follow you
Take it for what it’s worth from 45 years’ experience flying: if an airplane has a serious enough hiccup that a diversion plan is put in motion, carry that plan through and LAND AT THE NEAREST SUITABLE AIRPORT. I don’t care if the Queen of the Netherlands begs you to continue, don’t do it.
Just my two cents worth.
I agree totally. The flight should have been ended at the nearest airport.
If it is the fuel contamination cause, why not it is affected in other crafts also. It appears to be poor routine maintenance issue for this craft or the entire air lines.
A dual engine failure is indeed rare, especially at cruise alititude. But I didnt think of fuel starvation, I thought about ice crsytals forming in the fuel lines. This of course has happened before.
Since both engines suffered similar issues, fuel contamination is a possibility. It is not known how far into the flight the first engine problem happened but given the options that the flight route is possibly over Cameroon, Nigeria, Niger, Chad, Libya and Tunisia, I can see why perhaps the crew wanted to avoid emergency landing. But again, Italy could have been an option before flying over the Alps.
I’ve been a big fan of Sam’s. You guys deliver great content consistently. So, I want you guys to be the best. Just one humble suggestion – eliminate the typos. It can slip out of view, argument taken. But, that’s the difference between meh content and great content. That extra minute or two for reviewing such things will pay off well, though seems trivial. Call me a grammar nazi (I’m not, usually) but in this article – ‘continue to *work’.
Very much understand what you mean. Of course its natural to make a typo here or there, however its definitely something I’ll be working on to ensure its largely reduced. Occasionally reading over your own work doesn’t exactly pan out for the best typo elimination, nor does doing it on the go. Thanks for you polite feedback though 🙂
What works well for me is to read my writing out loud. For whatever reason grammar mistakes jump right out at me when I read it aloud. Obviously I can’t do that for everything I write, for example this response, but I do it for anything that is important.
When the first engine shut off unexpectedly why the hell was that plane not landed A.S.A.P. Instead of climbing back to cruising altitude and continuing on!
I agree with Sacks. Once an airliner or any dual engine aircraft suffers an inflight engine failure, landing at the nearest suitable airport makes the most sense to me.
Australian airlines? Or do you mean Austrian airlines?
My apologies mate. Meant to write Air Australia. It’s been corrected. If you’re curious about the airline, I’ll be doing a post about it in the near future 😉
Check the Fuel!
The departure airport is highly suspicious and should be checked thoroughly.
Check the fuel quality