Don’t know if it made the news in the US, but 10 days ago there was a pretty spectacular landing of a Cathay Pacific Airways A-330 at Hong Kong.
Spectacular, in that the plane had one engine at less than idle, and the other at 70% power - uncommanded by the crew.

They crossed the fence at 230 kts and blew a number of tires while stopping.

Here’s a write-up from PPrune:

Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 15:38:09 +0800
Subject: CX780 SUB-HKG 13 April 2010
To All Airbus Cockpit Crew,
As already covered by company news information and the public media, a major event occurred on flight CX780 Surabaya – Hong Kong on 13 April.
The crew had operated the aircraft, B-HLL, on the previous evening from Hong Kong to Surabaya. Crew complement was normal with two pilots and eleven cabin crew.
Routine maintenance checks were carried out overnight. All pre-departure preparations ex SUB were normal. There was nothing unusual about the aircraft weight, FOB (CFP fuel) and distribution. RTOW data used was in accordance with the Minimum Ground roll procedure as applicable to Surabaya. Weather at departure, en-route and arrival was good and not considered to be relevant to the event.
Initial Onset Conditions
Just before TOC, the aircraft experienced minor low frequency EPR oscillations. These oscillations had associated tracking of Fuel Flow. Later, this observation was followed with an ECAM message on ENG 2. After consultation with IOC, it was decided that the situation did not warrant an in-flight diversion.
Subsequent Engine Behaviour
During initial descent (passing FL310) ENG 2 experienced a surge and stall, and the engine could only be recovered to sub-idle speed for the remainder of the flight. Whilst levelling off at an intermediate lower altitude in the latter part of the descent, ENG 1 additionally experienced a gradual loss of thrust lever control, eventually resulting in an uncontrolled thrust increase to approximately 70% N1. The engine remained at this thrust level for the remainder of the flight.
Aircraft Flight Path
The aircraft was able to maintain altitude and speed until closer to the airfield, when further descent was commenced for an ILS approach onto RWY 07L. With the high residual thrust present on No1 engine, speed on intermediate and final approach remained high. Final configuration consisted of Flap 1 (with flap lever position at Flap 2), resulting in an approach speed of 230kts at the threshold. Flare and touchdown (at 220kts) was normal for these circumstances. Successful selection of REV, and appropriate braking enabled the aircraft to be stopped within 1,000ft of the threshold of RWY 25R.
After Landing
After the aircraft came to a stop, both engines were shut down (thrust on Eng 1 had remained at 70% N1). Brake temperatures rose rapidly. Comms were established with rescue services who advised tyre deflation and the presence of smoke/fire around the wheels. An emergency evacuation was successfully carried out with minor injuries to a small number of passengers.
Crew Actions
The Captain and First Officer both displayed commendable professionalism and airmanship of the highest order in successfully handling the challenging situation they faced.

Initial Investigations
CAD is conducting the investigation into this event, supported by CSD. An initial interview with the flight crew by CAD has taken place. EEC, QAR, and DFDR data have been successfully downloaded and are being analysed. All avenues of investigation, including fuel system fault and contamination, are being actively conducted with direct assistance and involvement from Airbus, and Rolls Royce.
Rolls Royce and Airbus have not issued any additional operational recommendations at this time. Updates on the investigation will be provided to all crew as soon as more information becomes available.
In the interim, crews are advised to contact Maintenance Control via IOC, if any abnormal engine behaviour is observed.

Kind Regards,

Steve Mihos & Gavin Haslemore
Airbus Fleet Office Attached Thumbnails

********************************************

Cheers - Ron - may all your flying be less interesting

"If it ain't Boeing, I'm not going."
Robin White

Collegues of mine. They had their hands full and did a great job with what they had to work with.
That's actually an inter-company email that went to all of us. Not sure why someone would submit that to PPrune but there will certainly be more to the investigation. The tilt is towards fuel contamination out of Surabya but very preliminary. If there's an interest here, I'll update when I get further news that's deemed conclusive.
As for Robins comment re: Boeing or not going, indeed, I'll continue hanging from the straps in the B744 for as long as I can. One predictable, beautiful machine.

I flew Boeing products for 32 years. B707-KC135, T-43A- B737 in the Air Force, and the B727, and 4 models of the B737 in airline service. I think about 21,000 hours before the age 60 rule got me. In all of that time, I had one hydraulic system failure and shut down one engine. The 737 has three hydraulic systems, so having gone is no big deal, and it flies fine on one engine. Boeing builds great airplanes!
I have heard numerous stories from pilots with whom I flew about their experiences, good and bad, on the scarebus. I have never been on an Airbus, so I have no personal stories about them.

Tony Randall

Hey, Michael - going back and forth in the region on my favourite airline, I don't have the option you have right now. It's Airbus or Airbus most flights. One of the reasons we fly Cathay is the front end crews are real pilots for the most part.

I, for one, will appreciate a posting if you hear any more.


Ron

Having flown both Boeing and Airbus there are plus and minuses to both. They are both fine aircraft. Most people who hate Airbuses have never flown them. If I got stuck flying only one aircraft, the Airbus would be my aircraft. Of course I have never meet an aircraft that I did not like flying except maybe a Piper Tomahawk.

RJ
B737,757,767,777
A319,A320