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.
In this post:
Cathay Pacific A350 returns to Hong Kong after fire warning
The Aviation Herald has the details of a recent Cathay Pacific incident. On Monday, September 2, 2024, Cathay Pacific flight CX383 was supposed to fly from Hong Kong (HKG) to Zurich (ZRH). The flight was operated by a five-year-old Airbus A350-1000 with the registration code B-LXI. Shortly after the jet departed Hong Kong, the crew stopped the climb, after receiving a right hand engine fire warning.
The crew worked through checklists, including shutting down the engine, and discharging one fire bottle. The fire warning ultimately ceased, so the jet dumped fuel and returned to Hong Kong, where it landed around 70 minutes after it departed. For what it’s worth, the A350-1000 uses the Rolls-Royce Trent XWB-97 engine, while the smaller A350-900 variant uses the Rolls-Royce Trent XWB-84 engine.
Cathay Pacific ultimately had a replacement aircraft ready, so passengers ended up flying to Zurich with a roughly four hour delay. Ordinarily when an incident like this happens, it doesn’t have bigger implications for the fleet. However, this situation was different…
Cathay Pacific identifies A350 engine component failure
Cathay Pacific consulted with Rolls-Royce regarding this issue, and within hours made the decision to temporarily ground its Airbus A350 fleet, so that all the jets can be inspected. Cathay Pacific has a total of 48 Airbus A350s, including both the -900 and -1000 variant.
It’s believed that this issue involves a flexible fuel line being damaged. Inspections revealed that other aircraft had similar issues, meaning some parts need replacing. Cathay Pacific has reportedly identified this issue on 15 different jets, and the current expectation is that it will take several days for all A350s to be operational again. All A350s should be flying again by Saturday. Dozens of flights have been canceled as a result of this issue.
Note that some A350s are already returning to service, after being inspected. So if you’re flying on a Cathay Pacific A350, you have nothing to worry about.
According to a Cathay Pacific spokesperson:
“This component was the first of its type to suffer such failure on any A350 aircraft worldwide. We immediately brought this issue to the attention of the aircraft and engine manufacturers, as well as our regulators. As a precautionary measure, we also proactively initiated a fleet-wide inspection of our 48 A350 aircraft.”
“Aircraft cleared for operation will return to service, while those identified with technical issues will undergo further repair and maintenance work. Meanwhile, we are liaising with the Hong Kong Civil Aviation Department and aircraft and engine manufacturers. We sincerely apologise for the inconvenience caused and appreciate our customers’ patience and understanding.”
I have a couple of thoughts and questions on this, and let me acknowledge upfront that aircraft maintenance is (obviously) beyond my area of expertise:
- Aircraft experience inflight incidents all the time, so it’s interesting that this was taken much more seriously than most others issues, and caused the fleet to be grounded immediately
- Given that this was reportedly the first such failure suffered by any A350 worldwide, and given that other Cathay Pacific jets were found to have the same issue, I’m surprised there’s not more of a global response in terms of other A350 operators inspecting and/or grounding aircraft
Bottom line
A Cathay Pacific Airbus A350 had to return to Hong Kong after the jet encountered a right hand engine fire warning shortly after takeoff. It was determined that this was due to a flexible fuel line being damaged. After consulting with Rolls-Royce, Cathay Pacific decided to carry out an inspection of its entire A350 fleet. This revealed that some other aircraft had the same issue, and it’s the first time that this was discovered on any A350 worldwide.
This defect is being fixed on impacted aircraft, and all Cathay Pacific A350s should be flying again by the weekend. I just find it a little strange how only Cathay Pacific seems to be impacted by this for now, and not other A350 operators, even though they use the same engines.
What do you make of this Cathay Pacific A350 engine situation?
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.
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.
Imagine it was a 777 instead of an A350.
"iF iT'S bOEinG, i aIn'T gOiNG!"
It was not an Airbus issue. Look to Rolls Royce for your blame.... :)
Flying JAL A350 first class soon.
Not as excited now :(
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...
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
*abundance of caution, that’s autocorrect for you
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.
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...
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.
"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
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.
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)
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...
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.
Grounded? I read they were inspecting and putting back into service as to results.
The inspection can't be done while flying. Therefore grounded until inspected and, if required, new part installed.
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.
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...
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.
Their efficiency is debatable, but they sure are diligent.
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.