Back to Squawk list
  • 61

Brussels Airlines A330 Suffers Inflight Dual Engine Failure

A Brussels Airlines Airbus A330-223, performing flight SN358 from Kinshasa to Brussels, suffered failures on both engines at different stages of its journey. As the aircraft reached its cruising altitude of 40,000ft over Algerian airspace, the number-one engine failed. The flight crew managed to re-ignite the failed engine and decided to continue its original route to Brussels. The aircraft suffered yet another engine failure as it descended towards Belgian airspace. “When in descending towards… ( More...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

linbb 28
Turns out there were two engine problems not dual failures meaning both failed at the same time. Kind of think it was luck on this one as they should have landed at the closest airport that would support there landing rather than continue on. Luck was with them this time.
bbabis 14
Agreed. Fuel contamination should always be suspected with an unexplained flameout. Then a landing at the nearest suitable airport.
Ric Wernicke 2
Fuel contamination in Africa? How is that possible? It is such a politically stable continent without a hint of corruption. You know the oil refineries are built with the finest equipment and operated by highly skilled engineers. And you'd be crazy if you thought Jet A sold South of the Med was as good as that available on the North shore.
Highflyer1950 3
Agreed. It only takes 5 min to get a fuel sample right at the truck or transfer vehicle and test it! I even asked for a sample in India and Russia as well.
Ric, Thanks for your comment. You are ever so right.
Mike Webb 12
If an engine stops in flight, shouldn't the aircraft land immediately, unless the flight crew are ABSOLUTELY certain of the cause? Sounds like "Hmm, an engine has stopped, lets keep our fingers crossed that it is nothing serious".
ravenshammer 0
Considering where they were flying, landing in some of the fly over countries might be more dangerous than just flying over them with one engine. I'm sure some of the passengers were grateful they didn't land in Turkey or worse places.
racerxx 3
In Turkey, huh?
The failure was indeed caused by heavy contaminated fuel taken at refueling at Luanda Angola. The plane is still grounded and the entire fuel system had to be cleansed and reinspected. A plane from Air France seems to been hit with the same problem also caused by the same contaminated fuel at refueling at Luanda Angola in the same period.
Jim Smirh 6
Been awhile since I retired, but in the US (and its flagged carriers), a two or three engine aircraft was required to land "at nearest suitable" when one engine quit. Four engine aircraft could continue even with one shutdown. No rules needed for single engine models. ;) Rules for other countries may be different. Of course, 20/20 hindsight is hardly ever available in the instant... but crew was most probably in contact with MX (and maybe even AB and/or the engine builder) before ALL agreed to continue.

Fuel contamination is certainly possible, but there could be two completely different problems. An engine that shut down because of a contaminated/clogged filter is not likely to relight.
kenish 5
Back in the 90's I was on a 744 (United) from LAX-HKG. They had to shut down #4 and landed in TPE instead of continuing.

The annoying followup is TPE was my destination after connecting thru HKG, so I arrived early! I did not have checked luggage for the 3-day business trip. But I could not leave due to some immigration/passport technicality. We waited about 10 hours in a cordoned off area of the terminal for a relief aircraft to be flown in and take us to HKG. I finally arrived back in TPE 30 hours later, into the SAME gate our diverted flight used!
Paul Donner 1
I recall in 1980 on a 747 flight out of Miami to Heathrow (I believe it was TWA) we lost one engine somewhere over the atlantic and we diverted to Kennedy for the night. Airline paid for dinner and hotel. Of course when we finally arrived in London it was 1 or 2am.
Jim Smirh 1
Yes, losing ANY engine over *water* is a bit more important than over (most) land areas with dozens of possible landing locations. :) One of the main reasons for ETOPS.
ewrcap -1
Read up on history. Taiwan and China don’t get along too well! That is why we would never divert there unless it was an emergency which, of course, this was.
Elliot Cannon 4
Regardless of the failure, the transition from four engines to two wasn't done to improve safety, it was done to improve profits. This is especially problematic when over the ocean. Now you are in a single engine airplane and like a friend of mine once said,"you are now lower and slower than before the failure, the water is really cold and the fish are bigger than you are".LOL
Jim Heslop 3
It seems to me that some of these airlines/pilots from other countries just dont get it. In my mind, an emergency declaration should be an automatic flight cancellation. Period. Once declared, that aircraft should be deemed unsafe to fly and must land, pulled from service until a full inspection in regards to the emergency clears it to once again be airworthy.
lecompte2 2
Seen this before where the fuel lacked the proper additives for cold temperatures at high altitudes and long flights. The last item in the checklist suggest's landing at nearest suitable airport ? Was the pilot ordered to continue by a bean counter ?
ewrcap 4
The pilot in command has final authority over the operation of the aircraft, period.
lecompte2 1
Nice to hear, but the flight deck is more and more invaded by people that want to influence the pilot. I know I was in one for close to 40 years
Paul Donner 2
Unbelievable. Very poor judgement not to divert. Second engine failure proves the point.
Hilton Conroy 3
The authorities should be demanding answers as to why the crew decided to press on after two engine failures. Looks like commercial pressures at work again and the risk to passengers was increased. Lucky the engines didn't fail on final
joel wiley 4
Well, one failed upon approach, and there wasn't many alternatives. The authorities should be demanding answers as to what the crew pressed on after the FIRST one.
Hilton Conroy 1
I agree entirely with you...
This reminded me of an old joke you have all heard...To save some typing as everyone knows the old joke, just the punch line. "now we will be up here all day". If you need the whole joke, just ask.
kenish 8
...or the B-52 that requested to be expedited due to an engine shutdown. Controller- "Cleared for the dreaded 7-engine approach!"
sharon bias 3
As someone who lived under the flight path of Mather AFB where B52's were stationed, I can say that any approach was dreaded. But take-off's were much worse.
Torsten Hoff 5
MH370, are you there?

Roy Hunte 1
He cries when there is a problem with an Airbus.
btweston 8
To be fair, you both look pretty silly.
dc3orbust 0
For the regular folks here, this comment rings great humor. Hang around a while and you'll pick up on MH370's theme yourself. No one waves the pom poms for Airbus more than this fella.
Torsten Hoff 1
Worse, he takes every opportunity to take a shot at Boeing and pretends that problems with Airbus aircraft don't exist. He's not an agnostic aviation fan, he's simply a Airbus fanboy.
linbb -2
Oh goodness thought he posted this, my bad, didn't know airbust ever had any problems.
joel wiley 5
From the Gospel according to MH370, it is impossible for 'Airbus' and 'problem' to be in the same paragraph. Incidents such as these are actually sabotage events done by nefarious Boeing moles.
ewrcap 1
Were these Rolls Royce engines?
jptq63 1
Any info on whose engines? I.e. General Electric CF6, Pratt & Whitney PW4000, or Rolls-Royce Trent 700.
LethalThreat 2
From the picture it looks like PW4168's.
jptq63 1
Thank you.
Alain Duhamel 1
The authorities should be demanding answers as to why the crew decided to press on after two engine failures. Looks like commercial pressures at work again and the risk to passengers was increased. Lucky the engines didn't fail on final
Répondre ↓•Permalien•Report
Anyone question third world service?
They had not been in the best part of the world.
jim garrity 1
My "Pucker" suction would be at 100%!
If there was fuel contamination, who was doing their fuel quality audits? All fuel facilities are very careful about fuel contamination and save fuel filter materials to show no contamination. I would like to see the fuel truck that delivered the fuel or the underground tanks, if that was the delivery system.
gassler 4
All pertinent questions... have you ever been to Kinshasa? The location and practices there make your questions all the more relevant!
joel wiley 2
If true, then the appropriate solution would be to head to the nearest airport. The question becomes 'who made the decision to continue to destination?". If it was corporate, would the decision have been the same if the 'decider' had been in seat 37B?
Tim Hollars 1
Both engines? I would look at a contaminated Fuel problem.
AWAAlum 1
There was an angel aboard Brussels Airlines Flight SN358 that day.
ewrcap 2
Yes, she’s a flight attendant.
AWAAlum 1
I'm sorry ... what about the FA?
Joe Birts 0
Article also said leak caused tanks to empty out. That doesn't make much sense since one engine was still operating.
Still, would think they should have landed after the 1st flame out.
Bernie20910 5
That was the Air Transat flight 236 incident.
Jim Heslop 1
Ya, I was kind of wondering why that was even brought up as a comparison. Sort of made it seem like the two were being made the same as one.

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]


Don't have an account? Register now (free) for customized features, flight alerts, and more!
Did you know that FlightAware flight tracking is supported by advertising?
You can help us keep FlightAware free by allowing ads from We work hard to keep our advertising relevant and unobtrusive to create a great experience. It's quick and easy to whitelist ads on FlightAware or please consider our premium accounts.