Cathay Airbus A330 lands on half an engine

[max]

Just read this story about Aussie pilots landing in Hong Kong. These guys are legends by all accounts. One engine shut down while on approach and the other was surging on and off. Then there was a problem with six tyres on touch down. Someone said it before and I'll drink to that: If it ain't a Boeing, I ain't going! However they did say it may have been caused by contaminated fuel taken on in Indonesia. Can all the usual aviation experts here throw some light on this?

[calais]

I have been unlucky enough to have the misfortune of having to fly on an A330 more times than I cared to.

The first was the worst by far, a flight operated by Strategic Airways, the aircraft felt like it was shaking to pieces on takeoff, followed by the crunching and grinding of the main landing gear retracting. On all three hops of the journey, the aircrew were running around like morons on the ground attempting to ascertain just how much longer this heap of junk would keep going.

Give me a Hercules crew anyday! (A Flyboys view anyway!)

[Bucknaked]

Originally Posted by calais

Give me a Hercules crew anyday! (A Flyboys view anyway!)

Not really all that comfy.

My dad was in the RAAF, stationed in Butterworth and as a kid I remember one year during school holidays in about 82, he wanted to send me, mum and my sister back to Australia for a holiday with family. The 707 flying out was full, so he got us onto a Herc for a 36 hour flight, Butterworth to Richmond and then onto a civi for the flight to Adelaide.

I remember the herc was transporting parts for some vehicles back to Australia, and the 3 of us, along with Aircrew and 1 other passenger sat on those little net seats, ate from a cardboard box and spent a night in Port Hedland WA during refuelling, before going across Ayres Rock and heading towards Richmond. I remember how noisy, cold and uncomfortable it was, but how amazing it was to have experienced this. As a 12 year old, it was about the most exciting thing. I spent a lot of time in the cockpit with the Aircrew. The flight back to Malaysia was on a 707.

I still have fond memories of my time growing up as a Raaf brat.

[aye you]

yep one engine shut down on approach, the other was non responsive to throttle inputs and locked at 70% N1, RAT deployed, high speed approach based on the CX ops manual, engine shut down and landed without engine power hence the blown tyres from the heavy braking.

thats all i know, and yes its from a reliable source (ala mate who flys for CX)

[Jim Goose]

It amazes me how people like to be critical of airbus.... all because the media reports its it to be the most dangerous plane on the planet or some other rubbish....

Boeings have dramas too you know...

As do Fords... Holdens.... etc etc etc etc etc

A C-130 is not an airliner, its a cargo plane (yes have flown in one)

An Airbus is not a cargo plane (though it does carry cargo!), its an airliner (and yes have flown in a airbus too).

Comparing them is a bit like comparing a Ute to a Bus...

The first was the worst by far, a flight operated by Strategic Airways, the aircraft felt like it was shaking to pieces on takeoff, followed by the crunching and grinding of the main landing gear retracting. On all three hops of the journey, the aircrew were running around like morons on the ground attempting to ascertain just how much longer this heap of junk would keep going.

The Herc is not sound proofed, therefor you cant hear the gear retract, only feel the thumps. All you hear is deafening engine noise, which requires everyone to wear ear plugs.

Airliners are insulated from engine noise, therefor you hear the hydraulics working when the gear retracts. ALL AIRLINERS DO THIS.... Sit near the wing of ANY airliner and you will hear undercarriage noises.

[drew`SEVNT5]

Originally Posted by max

Just read this story about Aussie pilots landing in Hong Kong. These guys are legends by all accounts. One engine shut down while on approach and the other was surging on and off. Then there was a problem with six tyres on touch down. Someone said it before and I'll drink to that: If it ain't a Boeing, I ain't going! However they did say it may have been caused by contaminated fuel taken on in Indonesia. Can all the usual aviation experts here throw some light on this?

Cos a Boeing would never have engines shut down, never skid off a runway, never crash...

[MethodX]

Yanks like to talk up Boeings, nationalism thing.

[calais]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

It amazes me how people like to be critical of airbus.... all because the media reports its it to be the most dangerous plane on the planet or some other rubbish....

Boeings have dramas too you know...

As do Fords... Holdens.... etc etc etc etc etc

A C-130 is not an airliner, its a cargo plane (yes have flown in one)

An Airbus is not a cargo plane (though it does carry cargo!), its an airliner (and yes have flown in a airbus too).

Comparing them is a bit like comparing a Ute to a Bus...



The Herc is not sound proofed, therefor you cant hear the gear retract, only feel the thumps. All you hear is deafening engine noise, which requires everyone to wear ear plugs.

Airliners are insulated from engine noise, therefor you hear the hydraulics working when the gear retracts. ALL AIRLINERS DO THIS.... Sit near the wing of ANY airliner and you will hear undercarriage noises.

Mate, I fly for a living, I know the roles of airframes I fly on. Your comparison of comparing a Ute to Bus just highlights that you don't fully understand where I was coming from and the point I am making.

Airframes and their respective flight characteristics and operational attitudes and functions can't be compared to land transport realistically. Airframe types are one thing, but their suitability and effectiveness in way they achieve flight was my point of difference.

The Hercs I fly in are maintained superbly. The Strategic A330 was a bucket of bolts. No aircraft should make noises and shudder like this one did. Ask any Aviator, they will tell you that undue vibration is a cause for concern, just like I have.

If a 55 year old airframe design like the C-130 can be made and maintained to fly in a smooth, reliable fashion. I dont like to think too much about what was wrong with the Strategic A330 I have flown in.

That said, the Qantas and American Airlines A330's haven't been much better.

[gcg2503]

If it aint Boeing I aint going!

;)

[Jim Goose]

Originally Posted by calais

Mate, I fly for a living, I know the roles of airframes I fly on. Your comparison of comparing a Ute to Bus just highlights that you don't fully understand where I was coming from and the point I am making.

Airframes and their respective flight characteristics and operational attitudes and functions can't be compared to land transport realistically. Airframe types are one thing, but their suitability and effectiveness in way they achieve flight was my point of difference.

The Hercs I fly in are maintained superbly. The Strategic A330 was a bucket of bolts. No aircraft should make noises and shudder like this one did. Ask any Aviator, they will tell you that undue vibration is a cause for concern, just like I have.

If a 55 year old airframe design like the C-130 can be made and maintained to fly in a smooth, reliable fashion. I dont like to think too much about what was wrong with the Strategic A330 I have flown in.

That said, the Qantas and American Airlines A330's haven't been much better.

So did I for a living.... and worked as an AME

Strategics current aircraft are new from factory.
The previous Airbus was Portugese and was only a few years old.

All airliners make noises when the gear goes up and down.
You cant noise proof internal noises.

Internally the Airbus is noisier because of the unique engine noise it makes
(sounds like a grinder).

A jet which shakes and rattles??? Too many "Flying High" movies....

And comparing a 4 engine turboprop with a jet.... hmmm
Good luck with that....

[MAD]

I've done a few domestic trips and I absolutely hate the boeing 737. On take off it feels like its going to fall out of the sky and on landing it seems like it's quite a handful for the pilot (lots of correction required)
I've done a couple of flights on an A320 and preferred it by a long shot... very comfy on take off and landing.

Any landing you walk away from is a good one.

[Danny]

The last time I commented on an Airbus v. Boeing thread I was shot down by one of our nitpicking phenominal cosmic know all members with little tolerance for those who have an eternal fascination however limited knowledge of the very particulars of aircraft and aviation.I love planes and aviation and in particular Airbus and I read about avaitaion every day so I do have a fair knowledge. Not a day goes by I don't turn my head skyward to see what's flying above!

While I have been in an A330 (Air Asia X) an A319 - A320 and an A321, not to mention a gorgeous Emirates A340, I can't say I have been anything other than impressed at their smoothness and quietness.

I HAVE however been on B747-400, B737 300, 400, and the 700 - 800 NG's, B727, B767, and on some of them it is not unusual to hear the odd rattle or squeak (particularly on a B747 and B737 Takeoff).

Main point is, I cannot make a BLANKET statement on the integrity of these manufacturers based on these experiences, and neither should anyone else. Boeing has had MANY well publicized accidents and fatalities over the years that commercial flight took off on their shoulders.

I do love planes from both Boeing, and Airbus, It is absolutely wrong to can Airbus and discount them like some of you would do to Holden. Airbus is an amazing manufacturer as is Boeing, there is no better or worse, safer or unsafer. Just opinion.

[Mr Hardware]

Originally Posted by gcg2503

If it aint Boeing I aint going!

;)

QFT!!

[gcg2503]

Originally Posted by Mr Hardware

QFT!!

This is what I meant to say

[max]

Originally Posted by MAD

I've done a few domestic trips and I absolutely hate the boeing 737. On take off it feels like its going to fall out of the sky and on landing it seems like it's quite a handful for the pilot (lots of correction required)
I've done a couple of flights on an A320 and preferred it by a long shot... very comfy on take off and landing.

Any landing you walk away from is a good one.

Yeah, I agree. They're a bit too stumpy I think. Give me a good long wheel-base airliner anyday. Having said that, Flying in a Tupolev Tu-154 is a bit unnerving. Boeing 737's have a different looking engine in the USA. More bullet shaped. Not that it relates to anything, I just wonder why.

[calais]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

So did I for a living.... and worked as an AME

Strategics current aircraft are new from factory.
The previous Airbus was Portugese and was only a few years old.

All airliners make noises when the gear goes up and down.
You cant noise proof internal noises.

Internally the Airbus is noisier because of the unique engine noise it makes
(sounds like a grinder).

A jet which shakes and rattles??? Too many "Flying High" movies....

And comparing a 4 engine turboprop with a jet.... hmmm
Good luck with that....

Look mate, I'm not going to carry on arguing with you.

As far as I am concerned, the Strategic A330 was a heap of ****. When the first officer of the day agreed with me upon landing, I don't care what anyone else says.

As for comparing a turboprop and a jet, you still don't get it.

As for this thread I'm out, concurring with the other blokes "If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going" (Lockheed's and McDonnell Douglas' are the exception to this rule : )

[Mr Hardware]

Meanwhile, over iceland:

[gcg2503]

Volcanic Ash caused the simultaneous engine failure of all four engines on one flight a few years back.....loved that episode of Air Crash Investigation. Very intriguing, glad all lived to tell the tale

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_9

Funny pic though!

[ltd]

Originally Posted by Mr Hardware

Meanwhile, over iceland:

Love your work.

Boeing V Airbus battles have been going on for years.
The USA have taken action in the WTO over subsidies to EADS (who owns Airbus), and won; the french have accused the USA of a closed shop re defence contracts (bit of a national security issue non the less as the french have often sold things to enemies of the USA) and the case is still ongoing.

From my experience:
* Airbus A320's are wider than the 737.
* 737NG's have a smaller ground effect and the large winglets through disruptions to wing vortices at low altitude add to the rough landings
* Airbus A340's cannot take full fuel, pax and freight without being over MTOW.
* Airbus A330's have several problems with wiring harnesses and kapton wiring problems causing erroneous data on the ADIRU's and computer shutdowns/emergency situations.
* Boeing 777 is the safest commercial aircraft in the world.
* US manufacturers such as Boeing and McDonnell douglas have been reluctant to fix known faults resulting in many deaths.
* Airbus has been proven on several occassions to cover up known faults causing many deaths
* A380 earned the nickname 180 from its propensity to emerge from maintenance, only to do a 180 degree turn and go back in with the same fault (most cases fuel delivery issues).

There are many more but frankly I'm too bored to reference any more.
The point is, neither of them is perfect, although in terms of downtime in maintenance airbus spend more time per flying hour in maintenance than Boeing.
I'd hazard a guess that the safety of an aircraft depends largely on the airline that owns/operates it.

[scoupedy]

Originally Posted by MethodX

Yanks like to talk up Boeings, nationalism thing.

Its not just yanks that talk them up -My brother is a CX 777 2nd officer and they all give there mates in A380's heaps, Boeing made the B17 and B29 bombers during ww2 and they had a good reputation for taking heavy damage and still flying, they have been making planes alot longer than Airbus- plus the A380 is contolled with a joystick!!

[DJM83]

On a car forum, im surprised at often a Boeing vs Airbus thread pops up. If you want to debate which one is better go to the right forum. Im getting a bit sick of it, how about we admire the pilots skill here and not criticise the plane eh?

[RG]

Originally Posted by gcg2503

Volcanic Ash caused the simultaneous engine failure of all four engines on one flight a few years back.....loved that episode of Air Crash Investigation. Very intriguing, glad all lived to tell the tale

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_9

Funny pic though!

That episode was on on Saturday night.

I'd seen it before but I had to watch it again, brilliant stuff.

[Riksta]

Originally Posted by RG

That episode was on on Saturday night.

I'd seen it before but I had to watch it again, brilliant stuff.

It was also referenced in a Discovery Channel Special "Mayday: Cruel Skies". I saw a bit of it Saturday night between DVD's and actually thought that it was the Discovery Channel special that I only watched recently.

[Kieron]

I bought Betty Tootles "All Four Engines have failed" when it was first released, very good read at the time. Still got it somewhere too!

Max, Not sure US 737's have different engines, however the first 737's certainly used a bullet shaped engine. IIRC, the 737 was designed to operate at airports with no ground support so had shorter undercarriage, this necessitated a low profile engine hence the bullet shape. You will notice later 737's have a flattened engine nacelle at the bottom in order to provide ground clearance, the engine is also well forward and high up on the wing rather than completely underslung.

Others with more knowledge may correct me if i'm wrong

[chevypower]

Wow this is amazing... Cos we all have so much experience actually flying these planes! Give me a Boeing 727. I like its maneuverability and acceleration. Every time I stop to fill it up with fuel, it costs an arm and a leg though.

[ltd]

Originally Posted by Kieron

I bought Betty Tootles "All Four Engines have failed" when it was first released, very good read at the time. Still got it somewhere too!

Max, Not sure US 737's have different engines, however the first 737's certainly used a bullet shaped engine. IIRC, the 737 was designed to operate at airports with no ground support so had shorter undercarriage, this necessitated a low profile engine hence the bullet shape. You will notice later 737's have a flattened engine nacelle at the bottom in order to provide ground clearance, the engine is also well forward and high up on the wing rather than completely underslung.

Others with more knowledge may correct me if i'm wrong

737 100 and 200 series used 2 low bypass ration Pratt & Whitney JT8D engines which were long and thin. They were also used on the older 707, and the 727.
They were the technology at the time but were thirsty and used to leave big plumes of black smoke in their wake. Later incarnations of the JT8D included a longer pod for better acoustics and noise suppression, the engine was also uprated several times.
It wasn't until 1968-9 that P&W developed the high bypass ration turbofan for the 747 that the modern engine was born. Increases in noise suppression, lower fuel burn and double the amount of power for less fuel than the JT8's gave birth to the 300 series. Engines such as the CFM56 became the norm as the older style were phased out seen as inefficient, noisy and underpowered.

[gcg2503]

Originally Posted by RG

That episode was on on Saturday night.

I'd seen it before but I had to watch it again, brilliant stuff.

Russ you should also check out the Dogfights series on the Discovery History Channel

These fighter pilots are truly in a different league!

[DJM83]

Originally Posted by gcg2503

Russ you should also check out the Dogfights series on the Discovery History Channel

These fighter pilots are truly in a different league!

When is it on George?

[MexicanBatman]

if your a geek plane spotter you will have probably noticed hot the airbus planes whole range from 320 330 340 and 380 are much more graceful smoother fliers than the boeings

i see maybe 50+ planes land a day when i can be bothered looking, and you can really notice this alongside the runway as the zoom past...

that said i've flown on most modern aircraft and i liked the 330 the best lol

everyflight i've been on a 330 had been smooth sailing errr flying ;)

seeing the 380 take off almost everyday you still turn to watch, the 747 on the otherhand no one cares anymore lol

[ltd]

Originally Posted by andrewg6e

if your a geek plane spotter you will have probably noticed hot the airbus planes whole range from 320 330 340 and 380 are much more graceful smoother fliers than the boeings

i see maybe 50+ planes land a day when i can be bothered looking, and you can really notice this alongside the runway as the zoom past...

that said i've flown on most modern aircraft and i liked the 330 the best lol

everyflight i've been on a 330 had been smooth sailing errr flying ;)

seeing the 380 take off almost everyday you still turn to watch, the 747 on the otherhand no one cares anymore lol

Lets not descend into another Boeing V Airbus argument please. Not trying to sound nasty but with your statement on the "graceful smoother fliers" is rather ill informed and amateurish.