Update: Cathay Pacific Airbus A330 loss of thrust control during flight

by B. N. Sullivan

The Hong Kong Civil Aviation Department (CAD), Accident Investigation Division, has released preliminary factual information regarding its inquiry into the loss of engine thrust control during flight on a Cathay Pacific Airways Airbus A330-342 aircraft (registration B-HLL).  The crew experienced control problems with both of the aircraft's Rolls-Royce Trent 700 turbofan engines during the scheduled passenger flight from Surabaya, Indonesia to Hong Kong on April 13, 2010, resulting in a high-speed emergency landing at Hong Kong. During the high-energy braking, five tires on the aircraft's main landing gear burst, and fire broke out on the wheels.  Emergency evacuation of the aircraft on the runway caused injuries to 57 passengers, 10 of whom had to be hospitalized.

Engine Thrust Control Problems During Flight

In its first report on this accident [see link below], issued in May of 2010, the CAD revealed that the crew first noticed Engine Pressure Ratio (EPR) fluctuations during climb-out from Surabaya.  Twice during the cruise phase of the flight an ECAM (Electronic Centralized Aircraft Monitoring) message, ENG 2 CTL SYS FAULT was annunciated, and the crew dealt with the situation, following ECAM procedures, in consultation with Cathay Maintenance control.  All engine parameters remained normal, except for some EPR fluctuations.

During descent to FL230, at about 100 nm southeast of Hong Kong, the CAD report says "the ECAM messages ENG 1 CTL SYS FAULT and ENG 2 STALL annunciated within a short period of time. The flight crew completed the necessary ECAM actions with No. 2 thrust lever at idle position. No. 1 thrust lever was advanced to Maximum Continuous Thrust (MCT) position."  At this point, the crew declared PAN PAN, advised Hong Kong ATC that they had No. 2 engine at idle thrust, and requested track shortening and priority landing.

When the aircraft was about 45 nm from the airport and was about to level off at 8,000 ft AMSL, the ECAM message ENG 1 STALL was annunciated.  The crew carried out the ECAM procedures, and declared a MAYDAY.  According to the CAD report, "The commander then tested the engines by moving the thrust levers.  During these movements, the No. 1 engine speed increased to about 74% N1 while the No. 2 engine speed remained at about 17% N1."

"The commander flew the aircraft manually for a visual approach for runway 07L... During the final approach with both thrust levers at the idle position, No. 1 engine was stuck at about 74% N1, and decreased to about 70% N1 during touchdown, and No. 2 engine was stuck at about 17% N1 throughout the approach and landing."

The aircraft touched down at a ground speed of 230 knots.

On landing, the lower cowling of No. 1 engine contacted the runway surface briefly.  Spoilers were deployed automatically.  Only No. 1 engine thrust reverser deployed.  The commander applied maximum manual braking and the aircraft came to a complete stop on the runway.  The No. 1 engine was still running at 76–79% N1 with the No. 1 thrust lever at idle.  The flight crew shut down both engines."

Fuel Problems Discovered

In its second bulletin, issued last week [see link below], the CAD reported preliminary findings related to the accident aircraft's fuel, noting that the aircraft had been refueled at Surabaya prior to its departure for Hong Kong.  The report describes these anomalies:

The examination of engine fuel components revealed that the Main Metering Valves (MMV) of the Fuel Metering Units (FMU) of both engines were seized at positions consistent with the corresponding final engine power.  The Variable Stator Vane Controller (VSVC) of the No. 2 engine was also found seized. Fine spherical particles (spheres) were present in the FMU, the VSVC and the Variable Stator Vane Actuator (VSVA) of both engines.  No faults or failures have so far been observed with any of the removed components, other than those associated with the contamination by the spheres.  Examination and analysis indicated that those spheres could not have been generated from within the aircraft airframe or engine systems under normal operating conditions and environment.

The examination of fuel samples collected showed that there were also spheres in the fuel samples from the engine fuel system and the aircraft fuel tanks.  Traces of such spheres were also present in the monitor filters layers and the fuel samples collected downstream of those monitor filters in the dispenser used to uplift fuel to the aircraft.  These spheres appeared to be similar to those found in various aircraft engine fuel components examined.

The report also states that analysis of data from the Flight Data Recorder (FDR) and the Quick Access Recorder (QAR) revealed "no evidence of unusual command signal from the Electronic Engine Controls (EEC), the manual thrust and the auto thrust systems.  The abnormal engines performance during the flight was believed to have been caused by stiction and eventual seizure of the MMV."

The report goes on to say that work had been performed on the hydrant refueling circuit at Surabaya not long before the Cathay A330 had been refueled there.  The investigation "noted that some of the re-commissioning procedures of that hydrant extension work were not in line with the guidelines and practices commonly used by aviation fuel industry, and that the hydrant refuel system for Stands No. 5 to 10 was used for refuelling, including the subject aircraft, before the completion of the re-commissioning procedures."

The CAD has not yet determined the exact source and nature of the spheres found in the fuel samples and filters.  The investigation is continuing.

Links:

• Hong Kong CAD: Accident Bulletin 1/2010 - 5-page 'pdf' file
• Hong Kong CAD: Accident Bulletin 3/2010 - 4-page 'pdf' file

RELATED: Dramatic emergency landing by Cathay Pacific A330 at Hong Kong - Apr 14, 2010

Dramatic emergency landing by Cathay Pacific A330 at Hong Kong

by B. N. Sullivan

A Cathay Pacific Airbus A330-300 (registration B-HLL) made a dramatic high-speed emergency landing at Hong Kong International Airport on April 13, 2010 after both of its engines malfunctioned during approach. The aircraft, operating as Cathay Flight CX780 from Surabaya, Indonesia, touched down on Hong Kong's runway 07L at a speed of 230+ knots, and six tires deflated due to heat from the high energy braking that was required. All 309 passengers and 14 crew members evacuated the aircraft on the runway via emergency slides. A number of passengers suffered minor injuries in the evacuation.

Early media reports from the scene suggested that both of the aircraft's engines had failed or been shut down during approach -- one shut down while the aircraft was some distance from the airport, and the other during short final -- and that neither engine was functioning at the time the aircraft landed. Cathay Pacific claims this was not the case, stating that while the number one engine had indeed been shut down, the number two engine was functioning. The airline also confirmed that all four tires on the left main gear and two on the right had deflated.

Later it emerged that both of the Rolls-Royce Trent 700 engines had become frozen at 70% of N1 speed. Subsequently, one engine was shut down, while the other was left operating at that speed for the landing. Cathay Pacific gave this account of a press briefing by Dennis Hui, Manager of Maintenance Support at the airline’s Engineering Department, on April 14, 2010:

He said that after further investigation of the flight data from CX780 and having interviewed the crew, updated information had shown a clear picture of this aspect of the incident.

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.

Mr. Hui said: “This is a higher power setting than is required for a normal approach with a single operating engine. Consequently, this higher than normal power setting led to a higher than normal approach speed and incorrect flap configuration.

“The aircraft therefore touched down at approx 230 knots, as against a normal 135 knots at this aircraft’s operating weight.

“However, the aircraft touched down on the correct position on the runway, but due to its high speed had to brake hard and use reverse thrust from the operating engine to bring the aircraft to a halt.

“The high speed and high energy braking led to very hot brakes, tyre deflation and the report from the FSD outside the aircraft that it had observed flames and smoke on the landing gear,” he added.

Mr. Hui said details of what happened and what caused the engine malfunction are now the subject of CAD [Civil Aviation Department] investigations. Cathay Pacific was co-operating closely with the investigation, along with Airbus and Rolls Royce, the engine supplier.

At the same press briefing, Quince Chong, Cathay's Director Corporate Affairs, praised the crew of Flight CX780, saying, “The pilots and the 11 cabin crew all demonstrated professionalism of a highest order in handling a most testing situation. It was due to their training, professionalism, their judgment, and ability to perform multi-tasks under a highly intense situation that the injuries had been kept to a minimum.”

Ms. Chong mentioned that the evacuation had been accomplished in two minutes.

UPDATE Apr. 15, 2010: The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Cathay Pacific has stopped refueling its planes in Surabaya "as a precaution," suggesting that fuel quality is being looked at as a possible cause of the dual engine malfunction. For the time being, Cathay flights will instead make a refueling stop at Jakarta.

The Wall Street Journal also reported that Hong Kong's Civil Aviation Department has taken fuel samples from the Airbus A330 for tests, and also has retrieved the aircraft's flight data recorders for analysis.

Court orders Cathay Pacific Airways to pay millions to wrongfully dismissed pilots

by B. N. Sullivan

A Hong Kong High Court judge has ruled that Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd. unfairly fired and defamed 18 pilots in 2001, and has ordered the carrier to pay the pilots HK$58.7 million -- an amount equivalent to nearly US$8 million. The pilots were among 49 who were fired by Cathay during a labor dispute. The fired pilots became known as the 49ers.

According to an article about the court ruling on BBC News, the pilots were fired when they started a work-to-rule campaign. The pilots told the court they were often made to fly longer than agreed hours, with not enough breaks between flights.

Although the airline claimed that the pilots were dismissed due to frequent sick days and a negative attitude toward management, the judge ruled that "the predominant reason for the plaintiffs' termination by Cathay was their perceived participation in union activities."

Hong Kong news Web site The Standard reported that Court of First Instance Judge Anselmo Reyes said:

"What I derive is that the 49ers were principally dismissed because management was unable to make headway in last-minute negotiations with the union.

"Cathay's intention was to show union members that management was prepared to take tough action against pilots who participated in MSS [Maximum Safety Strategy, a form of limited industrial action].

"The 49ers were singled out by the review panel as persons who by reason of their sickness records and ostensibly argumentative character were probably the most active supporters of the union cause.

"By dismissing them, Cathay hoped to send a strong signal to other union members to comply with management's line or else face a similar fate as the 49ers."

Bloomberg.com reports that, of the 18 plaintiff pilots, 16 were awarded HK$3.3 million in damages for defamation and HK$150,000 for wrongful dismissal each. One pilot didn’t get awarded damages for defamation and one didn’t get damages for wrongful dismissal. The pilots also were awarded their legal costs.

One of the 18 plaintiff pilots died in 2002. The Standard says that the deceased pilot's family "will not be compensated for defamation, but like the others will receive HK$150,000 for wrongful dismissal in addition to a month's pay."

The other 31 pilots who were fired at the same time also sued, but according to BBC News, they settled with the carrier at an earlier date.

Boeing 777-300ER in OneWorld livery delivered to Cathay Pacific Airways

by B. N. Sullivan

Boeing has just delivered a new B777-300ER aircraft to Singapore-based leasing company BOC Aviation and its customer, Cathay Pacific Airways. The plane is Cathay Pacific's 12th B777-300ER, and its 29th 'triple-7' -- but this one is painted with a special OneWorld livery. The special livery commemorates 10th anniversary of the OneWorld alliance, of which Cathay is a member.

According to Boeing, the B777-300ER is 19 percent lighter than its closest competitor, greatly reducing its fuel requirement. It produces 22 percent less carbon dioxide per seat and costs 20 percent less to operate per seat. The airplane can seat up to 365 passengers in a three-class configuration and has a maximum range of 7,930 nautical miles (14,685 km).

Cathay Pacific is one of 11 airlines and 21 affiliate airlines that make up the OneWorld alliance.

[Photo Source]

Cathay Pacific's cabin crew union urges members to reject unpaid leave

Last week Hong Kong's Cathay Pacific Airways offered its flight attendants unpaid leave of between two weeks and 12 months, beginning January 1, 2009, "as a result of the reduction in planned passenger capacity growth." The Cathay Pacific Airways Flight Attendants Union (CPAFAU), which represents the majority of the airline's 7,000 cabin crew, is urging members not to accept unpaid leave. The union claims that the company has not negotiated "reasonable terms" with CPFAU regarding unpaid leave at this time.

In a circular titled "10 reasons why you should not take unpaid leave," CPAFAU warned its members that flight attendants' bonuses, retirement funds and other entitlements would be adversely affected if they took unpaid leave. "If there really is a surplus of crew or the company is going to reduce flight frequencies, we will all get more time off on full pay if we don't take unpaid leave," the circular said.

Earlier this week, Cathay Pacific Airways announced that it is cutting back its earlier projection of 6% to 7% growth in capacity in 2009 to less than 1% to reflect the anticipated decline in demand.

All Cathay Pacific cabin crew may now work until age 55

Effective immediately, all flight attendants at Cathay Pacific Airways will be able to continue working at the airline until they reach the age of 55. Until now, cabin crew who began working for Cathay Pacific after 1993 faced mandatory retirement at age 45. Those hired before 1993 were allowed to work until they became 55. Under the new rule, the same retirement age will apply for all, regardless of hire date. The rule applies to both male and female cabin crew.

The change reflects recent negotiations between the Cathay Pacific Airways Flight Attendants' Union and the airline's management. The rule change will affect the 5,000 cabin crew currently based in Hong Kong, and also will be applied to the 1,500 or so new-hires that Cathay Pacific intends to add to its work force by the end of this year.

Video: History of Cathay Pacific Cabin Crew Uniforms

I've noticed that whenever I post anything in this blog about flight attendant uniforms or flight attendant history, I get a lot of positive feedback from readers. This interesting video addresses both topics, since it reviews the uniforms of Cathay Pacific cabin crew over the past 60 years. I hope you enjoy it.



If the video does not display or play properly above, click here to watch Cathay Pacific Cabin Crew/Flight Attendant Uniforms on YouTube.

Tip of the hat to YouTube user crazyroom06 for posting the video on YouTube.

Biman accident closes Dubai airport for 8 hours

Yesterday was a chaotic day at Dubai International Airport (DXB) in the United Arab Emirates.

First, a Cathay Pacific freighter arriving early in the morning from Frankfurt burst a tire on landing. Although shredded bits of the tire were scattered over the runway, according to Khaleej Times, the B747-300 aircraft was able to taxi to the ramp. No one was injured in the incident.

Only minutes after the Cathay Pacific freighter mishap, an Airbus A310 operated by Biman Bangladesh Airlines experienced a nose wheel failure during its takeoff roll. It is unclear from press reports whether the fault was with a tire or some other aspect of the nose gear.

At least one report, attributed to a Dubai Civil Aviation (DCA) official, said that "the wheel sustained damage due to the pressure of the brakes." If that is accurate, it suggests that the nose gear may have collapsed due to rejected takeoff.

In any case, the forward section of the aircraft slammed to the tarmac, and the plane skidded down the runway. Photos taken at the scene after the accident show the A310 resting on its engine nacelles, with the fuselage tilted markedly forward.

Biman Flight BG006, with 236 souls on board, was departing Dubai for Dhaka, the capital city of Bangladesh. After the aircraft came to a rest, passengers were evacuated using emergency slides. Gulf News is reporting that 27 people were injured, but only one needed to be hospitalized. There was no word on whether any crew were among those injured.

The accident caused DXB to shut down for about eight hours, according to a press release issued by Dubai International Airport. During that period, 36 aircraft departures were canceled and 35 incoming flights had to be diverted to other airports, including Abu Dhabi, Sharjah, Al Ain, and Ras Al Khaimah in the UAE; and to Muscat, Oman; Kuwait; and Shiraz, Iran.

Gulf News is predicting that financial losses due to the eight-hour shutdown of DXB will likely run into the millions.

While there are no clear estimates of the financial impact resulting from the disruptions, airlines will be affected from the loss of revenue from the cancelled flights. And with the diverted flights, airlines will also bear the costs involved with transporting passengers by bus or plane back to Dubai.

"It's very difficult to measure the financial impact of this sort of disruption, but it will certainly be in the millions of dirhams," said David Kaminski-Morrow, editor of Air Transport Intelligence.

The General Civil Aviation Authority (GCAA) and DCA are investigating the cause of the accident.

UPDATE: Click here to view a YouTube video of the Biman accident, apparently captured by a security camera at Dubai International Airport.

[Photo Source]