Cathay Pacific has canceled dozens of flights, after the airline temporarily grounded its Airbus A350 fleet following an emergency landing. This will have impacts on Cathay Pacific’s operations for several days. Let’s start by talking about how this problem was discovered, and what this means for passengers.
Continue reading: Cathay Pacific Grounds A350 Fleet Over Engine Component Failure
Share your questions, experiences, and thoughts below.
Wonder if we'll see other airlines do this. CX has always been a very responsible and effective airline, to the point that I'd rank it above SQ and EK in terms of efficiency and reliability for example (Some of you might prefer the EK service flow, but that's a different conversation!). So quite surprised that we haven't seen similar moves from other A350 operators. SQ for one needs to take a look because their A359ULRs operate such long missions -- I would want to check at least.
Flex pipe is of the devil. A plumber recently told me that flex pipe is responsible for more home flooding emergencies than anything else. Like Cosmo Castorini, he only uses copper.
SQ for one needs to take a look because their A359ULRs operate such long missions -- I would want to check at least.
All of the A359ULRs are currently (or have in the last few months) undergone heavy maintenance, and will continue to do so through February. So guaranteed that they've been observed for such.
Grounded? I read they were inspecting and putting back into service as to results.
I know this isn't particularly novel or new, but I still think it's pretty remarkable that these aircraft engines have such a robust fire detection and suppression system built in, such that when an anomaly like this occurs, they're able to extinguish the fire and safely return. Again, nothing new. Just one of those things where you consider how much engineering and how interconnected the systems are, and realize how complex these machines are.
For example, the A350 features a Fire Protection Function that monitors a dual sensing element loop system with detection zones in the accessory gearbox, pylon, combustion chamber and fan areas. It also has the ability to isolate hydraulics and fuel away from the engine to avoid propagation, and a suppression system that can dump a fire suppression agent and extinguish the flame.
Again, I know this concept is basically as old as aviation itself. I just think it's neat to learn how it works, and see it prevent loss of life and loss of hull events like this.
The inspection can't be done while flying. Therefore grounded until inspected and, if required, new part installed.
Looking at the various issues and troubles at the moment with aircraft, I guess it is time some gets around to putting a GE engine on an Airbus plane to take away the Boeing and Rolls Royce headaches..... 🙂
(I know it is not that easy, as a new GE engine would need to be made)
the real question is why CX felt a need to inspect all of its A350s requiring an inspection when other airlines which operate large A350 fleets did not.
CX is a large A350 operator and has both the -900 and -1000 but other airlines are apparently not grounding their fleets or finding defective parts.
Did CX specify or use a part (potentially the flexible fuel line) which other airlines do not use either from the factory or on replacement?
there are about 500 A350s flying worldwide and they all use the Rolls Royce Trent XWB engine although the versions on the -900 and -1000 is different.
CX has been trying to get itself back on track post-covid. If details emerge that CX uniquely did or didn't do something that other airlines did or did not have to worry about, then CX' image will be further damaged.
CX is a very cautious airline. Keep in mind this is the company that wouldn’t take the A380. The culture emphasizes safety and caution more than other operators (QR, PR, DL for example). Very unlikely CX would do something that uniquely created a safety issue for them and not QR and DL. More likely this is an absence of caution thing
if there is a significant safety risk, other airlines and regulators would be requiring inspections.
This isn't just about being more cautious - which is hard to measure anyway.
CX is acting because they had an incident. the question is still if there is soemthing that CX did or did not do differently from other airlines that caused the incident in the first place including the sourcing of parts including the fuel line.
"Keep in mind this is the company that wouldn’t take the A380."
You mean, like the overwhelming majority of other airlines on the planet? What does that have to do with some claimed cultural manifestation of "caution?"
CX was expected to take the A380 to the point that they released a whole youtube video explaining why they wouldn’t. Yes many airlines didn’t take the A380 but the expectation on CX was very different than on some smaller less premium airline
If this was a Boeing plane with the same issue, it would have been all over the national news with everyone yelling ground every plane.
JAL also went through inspections of their A350-1000 fleet. With only 5 aircraft so far, a bit quicker. I have not seen if they found issues.
In CX's defence, they did have an inflight engine fire warning that required them to shut down the engines and release the fire extinguishers on the engine, which they tied to the specific component. Going through an inspection is not an unreasonable step. And they found errors on 15 out of 48 aircraft. I'd say that's a very meritted inspection.
CX has cancelled only 11 flights today and not all of them are A350 flights so they have moved pretty quickly to get back to normal.
It is just as possible that other airlines are doing the same inspections and repairs but can do them without taking planes out of service.
I wasn't aware that CX image had been damaged... At least historically in Asia they were usually top tier / world class, with a matching safety reputation.
It looks like they are just being overly cautious (and rightfully so)
Their perception of quality an safety is how they can still charge 3-4X what an LCC carrier charges for the same route and still fill planes.