Back to Squawk list
  • 65

A Singapore Airlines Airbus jet lost power on all of its engines mid-flight

Over the weekend, Singapore Airlines Flight 836, flying from Singapore to Shanghai, lost power mid-flight on both of its Rolls-Royce engines. ( 기타...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

About rain ingestion flameout, an amazing story is Taca flight 110 in May of 1988.Landed dead stick on a levy.No serious injuries. Plane repaired and still in service today.
I saw a radar pic on Flightradar indicating the choice of route was directly into a severe thunderstorm. Will be interesting to see the official outcome.
Dubslow 7
Why didn't they immediately divert to Hong Kong if that was the closest airport at the time of engine recovery?
Al Bauer -1
Have you ever landed at the Hong Kong airport?
sicamore 3
you're thinking of Kai Tak which closed down in 1999. The new one is more than fine.
Al Bauer 2
Oh, Ok I haven't been there in many years.
KaiTak was a world all it's own. Pucker City.
Wouldn't you like the thrill of landing a 'bus doing a Gimli Glider into there?
I don't believe there are proper words in my vocabulary to describe that, my friend. LOL I wouldn't even like the idea of a Boeing in there without power.
The Gimli Glider was a Boeing!
Yeah, I know. We are talking KaiTak here though, king of the crosswinds and crab. LOL
My crosswind technique ain't too bad, but I'm not real sad to have missed it. The crunched 747 outboard engine cowls says it all.
Where did you get the badge of honor at?
I am talking about the videos from KaiTak of 74's crunching em in the crosswinds. I, personally, have never set foot in a 74.
Well, I was wondering about that. Must not be much to it though. Friend of mine up here in town is a retired Pan'Am driver. I asked him about Roswell one day, where they were training a bunch at the time. He said he was a 707 Captain, wound up going to Rio one weekend. He said they stuck him in the left seat and a check captain in the right and away they went. Same thing coming back. 2 days on the systems books and he was signed off; a genuine 747 Captain. Them was the good old days. A man would play hell doing that this day and time.
Preacher, you know how much I respect your opinions, but - as a former Clipper Driver- I find that hard to believe. If there was a negative to Pan Am's Training Department, it was that they overtrained us. They used to tell us that, if you get by the Company Check, the FAA will be a piece of cake. I found that to be true. Speaking from USAF, two airlines, and Flight Safety- Pan Am's Training was excellent and I never heard or any corner cutting. Re: another thread- hang in there about the Lord. I'll sure need him to put in a good word for me at the Gates...... I have to witness for him now!
I won't argue. That is just what was told me. Time frame was in the 70's, all I know. Aren't you up in NWA now close to your son?
If you are who I'm thnking you are, you know the retired Pan-Am driver I'm talking about.
You know, II think I might have an answer to this. Preacher, I have long read and respected your posts here. I know you wouldn't falsify or embellish to make a story better. Back in the late '60's Pan Am was growing like crazy. It is very likely that your friend bid F/O on the 74' to check out the new airplane and get the Rating and shortly after was able to hold 707 Captain,, then as more 74's were delivered, was able to hold Captain on the 74'. If he already had the Rating his checkout would more or less be what the Airline wanted it to be. If he went to GIG with a Check Captain, he would have been in the log as SIC and perfectly legal. BTW, still in DFW- finally hung it up at NJA. Got my last flying paycheck about a month after I turned 75.
Well, I appreciate all the kudos and I'm kinda like you, had to hang it up, age and medical, more medical than anything but I'm getting over that. Health is coming back but this insulin gonna spoil everything, although I heard a waiver for this one a day Lantis is coming, but haven't seen it yet. As far as the PanAm driver, all I know, that's what he told me and more than once. Past that you know what I do. LOL
No, it was a DC-10.
And it wasn't Kai Tak either

it was performed by a boeing 767(retired)
the Glimi Glider was on a boeing 767
And it didn't land at Kai Tak.
Man, I guess my memory from 1983 is fuzzier than I thought. I just researched it again (originally read the account in Flying Magazine) and it WAS a 767. I thought it was a DC-10. This getting old stuff really stinks. lol
Getting older beats having a landing you don't walk away from!
Well, I though it was a 757 for the longest so don't feel too bad.
BaronG58 1
Hey Philip!..Fuzzy memories from 1983 is a leg-up on me. Only thing I remember is my oldest daughter was 2 yrs old. 8--)
Felipe, very good point. The Trent engines are fairly easy to restart due to the programming in the Rolls engines. They will continue to attempt restarts unless the PIC de sides to override and attempt a manual start but it is far better to allow the Rolls to attempt auto start. Descending allows better and more powerful spooling for the restart. This of course is best with both power plants out. With a single failure, bleed over assist and the auto-throttle up, to maintain cruise, makes the restart much easier.
mike SUT 5
"When a jet like the A330 loses an engine, it's still certified to fly for as long as four hours on the remaining engine. Obviously, when a jet loses both engines, the situation is much more serious."

Yep, then they are certified to fly on no engines for 8 hours....thanks folk, I'll be playing here all week. :-)

I'm surprised they didn't divert to the "nearest airport at a point in time" Hong Kong as opposed to continuing on to Shanghai. If my engines quit, even for a known reason such as Ice ingestion or heavy water ingestion, my thought would be to get it on the ground for inspection to ensure some other internal damage hadn't occurred as opposed to flying away from a perfectly good piece of asphalt.
Well Mike, that's kinda my feeling. Not really any question. Even if it was a known thing or all was normal after the restart, There should not have been any question on getting down, even if it meant landing heavy. Even if only 1 and even if it restarts, I think or would have thought it was pretty much SOP to get down ASAP. Sounds like not all has been told here.
Decision is made by airlines dispatch dept. Yes pilot has ability to do as he pleases since he is the final decision maker but would most likely not have a job after disageeing with dispatch.
That in part is why I think not all has been told. A lot could have happened there that DS and crew concurred with. You just never know.
Maybe in the states, not in singapore.
Cpt always makes that decision..not a despatcher
After what have happaned, only a criminal pilot could make such to continue the flight after both engine shutdown, and if by chance, it be repeated? He makes a new re-start the engine until he gets to destination?
With no engines/power @ 39,000 feet, if I was the Capt., no dispatcher in the world would be telling me where to fly too (job or no job)!!
possible water ingestion or core ice formation in thunderstorm?
Pileits 2
Singapore probably lost a few passengers bags as well.....
Conversations with colleagues recently exposes thoughts and feelings of relutance to fly with either Malaysia Airlines or Air Asia as a result of dramatic incidents with with both these companies. A reported potential incident with Singapore Airlines demonstrates that any and every airline can experience problems. I am delighted with the current restructure with Malaysia Airlines.
There a problems, and then there are PROBLEMS ( like losing a complete plane with passengers, etc.). I've flown to Europe, Egypt, Hong Kong, etc. all with Singapore Airlines. Great service, stewardess's are not only stunning but provide superb service (every request is met with a wonderful smile).
Pilot says get the manual and initiate a restart of the failed engine. Copilot starts resetting wrong engine. Pilot says we have lost both engines now. Copilot says.......
akovia 1
Read the article again. It lost 13,000 feet.
i still can't understand why pilots fly into thunderstorms.
There comes a time when you got to and there is no way around. I was on a DAL flight one night as a pax. We were at MEM stop going on to LIT. Captain walked back in cabin and said we can call a bus for those that would rather stay on the ground but there is a wx line stretching from ORD to IAH topping about 41000, just sitting there and not moving. Needless to say, the plane is going to LIT, whether you are on here or not and there will be no cabin service. Everybody staed on board. For the 10 minutes or so that it took us to punch thru, it was like being on the inside of a lightbulb and altitude spreads were as much as 10 grand. When we did punch thru, it was smooth air.
sS I mentioned on a previous comment, any airline can experience alarming problems. On 2 June Qantas had a situation that raised alarms. QF 93 travelling Melbourne to Los Angeles made an unplanned stoppage at Sydney due to uncertain mechanical issues.
On a simulator training session quite a few years ago, the instructor threw some smoke in the cockpit of a DC9 enroute from YUL to YYZ but only 5 min before being a beam YOW. The crew went through the fire/smoke drill perfectly. The only problem was they did not immediately divert to YOW but kept flying to YYZ.
Bill Winslow's question needs an anwser unless the crew knew exactly why the engines stopped.
That remains to be the big question from everyone and there is a lot of speculation that they did know why they both stopped.
If all the coordinates are anywhere close, they could have dead-sticked HK.
There have been quiet a few folks here questioning why the pilots did not use a diversion airstrip and set the 330 down on the ground. There are several probables to this question. With the extended times given in ETOPS (rules that govern how far away a twin engine can fly from a diversion airstrip), the allowable time is set at 120 minutes plus 15% once an airliner's indicated speed drops below 389 knots. I know, in some cases ETOPS is set at 180 minutes, but this perimeter is used for special long haul equipment, normally designated as "E" for extended range. But back to ETOPS concerning this flight 836. ETOPS is designed for an engine out scenario so in a case like flight 836 where you have dual flame outs, the rules of engagement change dramatically. The first rule as a Captain is to go to Engine Status on the MFD and make a determination as to the cause of loss of power. Just like in an automobile, if your engine suddenly shuts down without a warning, you go to the gauges. Fuel? OK. Oil pressure? OK. Temperature? OK, and so on. But when dealing with power plants the size of a small bus and the thrust to lift 450,000 lbs, the problem solving becomes very trying, even when your on board computer is accessing 250 inputs in micro seconds. As a professional pilot, you spend literally hundreds of hours in simulators preparing you for this one of many emergencies that might present itself in flight. And it is at this time that you must recall all of that knowledge and act accordingly. Believe me, as an airline pilot, you want to get back onto terra firma just as much as any other person on board! To be cruising at nearly 40,000 feet and loose all power from your engines will cause you to sit up straight but it also puts you into a different mode as a pilot. You become keenly aware of your instrument readings most of which is how near am I to stall speed! Dropping even 15,000 feet in this case would still have given the PIC time to commit to an alternate runway according to charts in and around his flight path. All in all a good flight with a good landing at the destination airport!
After reading your post, I went back to the article and followed the link to the AVHerald site. Comments posted there were quite interesting. Thanks for the post.
The captain has power dispatch in the US. At least we did when I was flying DC10s.
i would of needed change of underwear lol
Well, they say pilots train for that. The only training I ever got on a Boeing back in the day was " Do you know how to pray and handle a glider?" That was going from a 707 to a 757.
chudddds -4
and while you pray, youre getting people killed
well, no need to start an argument as no minds will change, BUT, I believe in God and the power of prayer. It has worked for me in many places. You may do as you wish. That is a good thing about this country that we have the right to disagree. I am very proud of my time given in defending that right. And regarding the training, that was a valid comment from a Boeing guy.
Polite people keep their religon to themselves. Believe in the majic guy in the sky all you want just kerp it out of my life.
Well, one can't be PC everywhere. I think I did good saying no more than what I did. I could have preached you a good sermon. As far as it getting in your life, too bad, as I just relayed what was said to me. Anything less would have nullified the effect of it. Besides, there were actually 3 of us that day that must have all believed; me, my FO and the Boeing guy. Have a blessed day.
Paul, I don't know if you are the U.S., but here Preacher and I are just as free to express our beliefs as you are to express your lack of belief. If I offend you- hey the First Amendment gives me the Right to offend! And, by the way before you say it, the Constitution's intent on Religion was to protect the Church from the State, not vice versa.
Then why did you post this over on the discussion about the private Harrier squadron:
"This guy must have more money than god. The cost of fuel alone!".
If you want to eschew opinions differing from your own, perhaps you should be more circumspect with the forums in which you participate
BaronG58 3
No..polite people respect other people's beliefs and opinions.
This is the awesome investigation report of the Taca 110 flight
There is not really anything else that can be said here. Yes, they had a cockpit full of senior airmen. Not taking anything away from them other than to say, they FLEW THEIR PLANE. I may get in trouble for it as well but it goes without saying that the Hand of God was on that flight.
...and just when I am about to take an SQ flight from BKK to SIN on Monday... wonderful. I will be taking a good look to see what engines are fitted - not that the knowledge will assist in any way of course - hm, maybe I will NOT look.

If it was caused by the proximity to the thunderstorm (and water intake) I will be both surprised and rather less than impressed, since the Asian region can experience tropical storms for much of the year.
Surprised that they did not divert to Hong Kong or another alternate.
Possibly like the Southern Airways DC9 that lost thrust on both engines after hail ingestion on 4 April 1977? Per, landed on a road near New Hope, Georgia but hit trees and a building. Unfortunately lost 62 of 85 lives on the DC9 plus 8 people on the ground. Too much water in any form is bad.
Sorry for the auto spell check errors. In a bit of a hurry. Rolls Royce engines are among the best in the world. Next to GE's Next Gen engines, the Trents are some of the finest power plants available. Rolls prides themselves in finding any problem that occurs in their engines and I'm confident they'll find the issue that caused these flame outs.
What is missing here is the Airbus flight manual instructions for an engine out emergency. The sequence to follow for an in flight engine start is fairly basic to all turbo fan engines. A dual engine failure would point to a fuel interruption. However, RR engines have an auto restart feature that is controlled by the flight management computer. The loss of 13,000 feet in a dual power plant failure would be normal for the Airbus A319/320 if the plane was at Mach .85 at 40,000 feet. As to the question of putting the plane on the ground with engines shut down, there are contingency plans already in the works as soon as the engines loose power, whether it be a single engine or both. All pilots are familiar with the story of the Gimly Glider and the miss calculation of fuel on that flight which caused both engines to flame out with no chance for restart. This in fact turned the Boeing into a giant glider. According to Singapore Air, there ground investigation produced know reason for the flame out. What we have not heard is what RR knows about this incident. Rolls continuously monitors its engines and can record over 230 engine sensor inputs in live time. This is where the real story will come from as Rolls Royce gathers all the monitored information and produces their own report on the engines.
rubbdraw 1
you need spell check my friend.
I question the pilots choice to continue flying for another one and half hours rather than divert to a closer air field. Makes me wonder if the shut down was not accidental in nature and not a mechanical problem. This happened years ago to Delta 767 climbing out of LAX.
That is cause for concern, but they did lose 26000 feet. How long?
I read 13,000 whatever they lost in altitude I think it was a bad decision not to land at the closest airport that could handle that plane at its weight. I'm not sure if it is cable of fuel dumping.
I'm not either on the fuel dumping. They were at FL390 and went to 13000 before the restart and control. That's 26000 ft.
it's pretty hard to restart engines at FL390 in a thunderstorm, they probably had to descend to get to windmill speed.
Seems Passengers would not have noticed as the fall was not too steep and speed increased rather than stalling...Can experts narrate what exactly would have happpned ?
I believe I would have noticed the lack of engine noise.
I see the airplane first flew on March 12th, and was delivered to SG on March 31st. So glad that Airbus took their own sweet time to fully test this aircraft before allowing passengers aboard.

I wish Airbus would make the "computer" a tool and render control of the aircraft to pilots.
bentwing60 -7
Not likely since most of the pilots I know won't ever join the socialist liberal wing and they have to be controlled somehow! And I thought water had a lot of oxygen in it so why won't it burn. Darn those pesky rain showers.
It was an infelicitous imbalance of the four humors air, fire, water, and earth. When the first three get out of balance in an aircraft, it is liable to impact the fourth. Simple as that.
At any rate, they both quit and it doesn't appear to be on the pilots, whether Airbus would like it to be or not.
Ya mean that flying an airbus ain't pilot error? <font alert>
< my font quit >
chalet 1
Are U OK, doubt it
Hmm, channeled properly those storms could give you a huge increase in power. Airbus just needs to add monsoon cowl doors that collect the water and allow it to drain directly after the burner and before the 1st turbine stage. Free water injection!
honza nl -2
yes,because pilots sit on a bicycle driving the engines, right ?
Amazing thank God every one sad ok.
chudddds -7
heres that mythical god thing again, jeez , wake up
Though A330 is certified to fly 4 extra hours when loses an engine to me the pilot should have diverted to the nearest airport to avoid any possible disaster.Why put passengars'life on the line when pilot has the final say either to land or otherwise?
You are referring to flight 242 departing Huntsville, Al, in route to ATL on Aprill 4, 1977. These types of tragedies are very rare today due to far better power plants and better weather routing by airline dispatch personnel. The cause of flight 242 going down was attributed to extreme weather producing rain at the rate of eight to ten inches an hour and large hail being ingested into the engines. The flight level was somewhere around 16,000 feet at the time of the engine failures and restarts were impossible for the P&W 72 engines. Today's engines are capable of water ingestion of greater than twelve inches an hour, greatly due to the higher bypass ratio of today's power plants. In short, this flight disaster could have been avoided with better weather information to the flight crew. The section of Hwy 92 still has a brass placket at the crash site listing all those who lost their lives that day in New Hope, GA. This accident is still used as an example for ATP flight training today.
skyhawkrg -1
Are these the same engines as on the A400 that lost power and crashed?
No, but the core of both aircraft power plants is a "jet" turbine (as opposed to a piston engine).

The A400M has turboprop engines, in which a "jet" turbine drives propellers using a shaft, somewhat similar to traditional piston engine propellers. Turboprops are relatively common on aircraft which operate at slower speeds.

The SAL A330 has (Rolls Royce Trent high-bypass) turbofan engines in which a "jet" turbine is encased in a housing and powers a shaft to turn a series of fan blades which blow a large volume of air through the housing surrounding the engine but bypassing the engine core itself.

Google "turboprop", "turbofan" and "high bypass"

I am under the impression that computer software which controls fuel distribution is the suspected cause of the A400M crash.
You and Sparkey would make a good match trying to convince the world and aviation world for that matter that all are jets, regardless if there is a prop.; Even most pilots would argue with you about a jet and a turboprop.
30west 2
Cessna tried back in the 80's when they promoted the CE-425 as a "Prop Jet" in their advertising and had a "Prop Jet" decal on both of the PT6 nacelles.
Hey preacher, I was trying to give a simple but accurate answer but it got complicated real fast.

I understood the possible debate so I used quotes around "jet". To me the core of a turboprop powerplant is a "jet" engine.

The most interesting a/c powerplant was the giant rubber band the Germans used to launch gliders (downslope) in the 1930s when they were severely restricted by Versailles. Some of their best WWII fighter pilots received initial flight training using these devices. Some of those gliders (eg Lippisch Zogling and Schneider SG38)had no instruments, no panel, no ASI, nothing whatever. The pilot judged his airspeed by the sound of the airflow in the wires.
30west 1
I pretty much have similar thoughts as I answer questions about turboprops from friends and don't want to get into the weeds.

My take is that all of these engine types....turboprop, turbojet, turbofan, high bypass, etc. have one thing in common. They all have a turbine engine, turbine blades vs. pistons...I know, big surprise. The difference in my mind is what provides the thrust, the turboprop uses a propeller to do it (I think Garrett's provide about 5-10% of total thrust from the exhaust end of the engine) and the other types of turbine engines use jet propulsion as the sole source of thrust and hence the "Jet" engine name when they were introduced. I don't know enough about the Un-Ducted Fan that was being tested a number of years back by PW (?) to throw that into the mix.

Then there are the jet skis that use water jets to provide the thrust. But I digress, I don't even want to go there!! ;-)
Thanks 30west, glad I'm not the only one who can end up in the weeds.
No. The A400M uses Europrop turboprops (the most powerful of its type in the world), whereas the A330 uses Rolls-Royce turbofans.
Always Rolls Royce engines having these flame-out issues.
You need to look at GE with their icing problems on 747-8 and 787 aircraft before making silly comments.
Stupid comment! Any engine can suffer flameout for a variety of reasons. P&W and GE have had similar problems over the years.
Engines are tested for resiliance against flameout from rain. Mother Nature (if you believe in her) can throw more water than the testing engineers can.
(Duplicate Squawk Submitted)

Passenger Jet Loses Power, Drops 2.5 Miles

Singapore Airlines says it's investigating how one of its jets suffered a loss of power in both of its engines over the weekend and descended 13,000 feet—nearly 2.5 miles—before regaining altitude en route from Singapore to Shanghai.
I saw a news report stating that the aircraft in question was only a year old,basically brand new ..they also said after an inspection, etcetera, the aircraft was put back into service..holy cow! I am not a pilot but I do know large aircraft are not made to be "gliders" engine operating is manageable..2 engines not operating is a scary thought!!
I'm a thinkin' it was less than a year. Somewhere I thought I saw it going into service in March of this year. That is on another post below. I believe it did go back in service after thorough inspection. They did not find the cause of the flame out.
(Duplicate Squawk Submitted)

Singapore Airlines A330 lost twin engine power during flight

A Singapore Airlines Airbus A330-300 jetliner, operating commercial flight ‪SQ836 on May 23, lost power on both engines over south-east of Hong Kong
(Duplicate Squawk Submitted)

airbus A330 Flies For 25 Minutes Over The Pacific With Both Engines Out

Brand new iron shuts down over the Pacific.....YIKES!


계정을 가지고 계십니까? 사용자 정의된 기능, 비행 경보 및 더 많은 정보를 위해 지금(무료) 등록하세요!
이 웹 사이트는 쿠키를 사용합니다. 이 웹 사이트를 사용하고 탐색함으로써 귀하는 이러한 쿠기 사용을 수락하는 것입니다.
FlightAware 항공편 추적이 광고로 지원된다는 것을 알고 계셨습니까?
FlightAware.com의 광고를 허용하면 FlightAware를 무료로 유지할 수 있습니다. Flightaware에서는 훌륭한 경험을 제공할 수 있도록 관련성있고 방해되지 않는 광고를 유지하기 위해 열심히 노력하고 있습니다. FlightAware에서 간단히 광고를 허용 하거나 프리미엄 계정을 고려해 보십시오..