If you wish to contribute or participate in the discussions about articles you are invited to join SKYbrary as a registered user

AIRBUS A-330-200

From SKYbrary Wiki
Name A-330-200
Manufacturer AIRBUS
Body Wide
Wing Fixed Wing
Position Low wing
Tail Regular tail, mid set
WTC Heavy
Type code L2J
Aerodrome Reference Code 4E
Engine Jet
Engine count Multi
Position Underwing mounted
Landing gear Tricycle retractable
Mass group 4

Manufacturered as:

AIRBUS A-330-200
AIRBUS Prestige (A-330-200)
AIRBUS A-330-200 Prestige

AIRBUS A-330-200

AIRBUS A-330-200 AIRBUS A-330-200 3D


Large capacity long range airliner. In service since 1998. Shorter long range version of A-330-300 ( 2-engine version of A340) to supplement the A-300-600. Full freighter version A330-200F (first delivery in 2004). Total of 327 aircraft ordered and 229 in operation (August 2006). The A332 is member of the A330 family of aircraft.

Technical Data

Wing span 60.3 m197.835 ft
Length 58.82 m192.979 ft
Height 17.39 m57.054 ft
Powerplant 2 x GE CF6-80E1 (306kN) or
2 x R-R Trent 772 (300kN) or
2 x PW 4173 (308kN) turbofans.
Engine model General Electric CF6, Pratt & Whitney PW4000, Rolls-Royce Trent 700

Performance Data

Take-Off Initial Climb
(to 5000 ft)
Initial Climb
(to FL150)
Initial Climb
(to FL240)
MACH Climb Cruise Initial Descent
(to FL240)
(to FL100)
Descent (FL100
& below)
V2 (IAS) 145 kts IAS 175 kts IAS 290 kts IAS 290 kts MACH 0.8 TAS 470 kts MACH 0.8 IAS 290 kts IAS kts Vapp (IAS) 140 kts
Distance 2300 m ROC 2000 ft/min ROC 2500 ft/min ROC 2200 ft/min ROC 1500 ft/min MACH 0.81 ROD 1000 ft/min ROD 3000 ft/min MCS 200 kts Distance 1800 m
MTOW 230000230,000 kg
230 tonnes
Ceiling FL410 ROD ft/min APC C
WTC H Range 72507,250 nm
13,427,000 m
13,427 km
44,051,837.303 ft

Accidents & Serious Incidents involving A332

  • A319/A332, vicinity Barcelona Spain, 2012 (On 8 February 2012, a TCAS RA occurred between an Airbus A330 and an Airbus A319 both under ATC control for landing on runway 25R at Barcelona as a result of an inappropriate plan to change the sequence. The opposite direction aircraft both followed their respective RAs and minimum separation was 1.4 nm horizontally and 400 feet vertically. The Investigation noted that the use of Spanish to communicate with one aircraft and English to communicate with the other had compromised situational awareness of the crew of the latter who had also not had visual contact with the other aircraft.)
  • A332 / A332, en-route, near Adelaide South Australia, 2013 (On 20 September 2013, a loss of separation occurred between two en route Airbus A330s under radar surveillance in controlled airspace near Adelaide. The potential conflict was resolved with TCAS RA action by one of the aircraft involved but the TCAS equipment on board the other aircraft appeared to have malfunctioned and did not display any traffic information or generate an RA. The complex pattern of air routes in the vicinity of the event was identified by the Investigation as a Safety Issue requiring resolution by the ANSP and the response subsequently received was assessed as satisfactory.)
  • A332 / A333, en-route, North West Australia, 2012 (On 31 March 2012, after the implementation of contingency ATC procedures for a period of 5 hours due to controller shortage, two Garuda A330 aircraft which had been transiting an associated Temporary Restricted Area (TRA) prior to re-entering controlled airspace were separately involved in losses of separation assurance, one when unexpectedly entering adjacent airspace from the TRA, the other when the TRA ceased and controlled airspace was restored. The Investigation did not find that any actual loss of separation had occurred but identified four Safety Issues in relation to the inadequate handling of the TRA activation by ANSP Airservices Australia.)
  • A332 / RJ1H, vicinity Zurich Switzerland, 2004 (On 31 October 2004, a Loss of Separation occurred between an A330-200, on a low go-around from Rwy 14 at Zurich Switzerland, and an Avro RJ100 which had been cleared for take-off on Rwy 10 and was on a convergent flight path.)
  • A332 MRTT, en-route, south eastern Black Sea, 2014 (On 9 February 2014, the Captain of a military variant of the Airbus A330 suddenly lost control during the cruise on a passenger flight. A violent, initially negative 'g', pitch down occurred which reached 15800 fpm as the speed rose to Mach 0.9. In the absence of any effective crew intervention, recovery was achieved entirely by the aircraft Flight Envelope Protection System. The Investigation found that the upset had occurred when the Captain moved his seat forward causing its left arm rest to contact the personal camera he had placed behind the sidestick, forcing the latter fully forward.)
  • A332, Abu Dhabi UAE, 2012 (On 30 January 2012, an Airbus A330 departing Abu Dhabi at night lined up on the runway edge lights in the prevailing low visibility and attempted to take off. The take off was eventually rejected and the aircraft towed away from the runway. Damage was limited to that resulting from the impact of the aircraft landing gear with runway edge lights and the resultant debris. An Investigation is continuing into the circumstances and causation of the incident.)
  • A332, Caracas Venezuela, 2013 (On 13 April 2013, an Air France Airbus A330-200 was damaged during a hard (2.74 G) landing at Caracas after the aircraft commander continued despite the aircraft becoming unstabilised below 500 feet agl with an EGPWS ‘SINK RATE’ activation beginning in the flare. Following a superficial inspection, maintenance personnel determined that no action was required and released the aircraft to service. After take off, it was impossible to retract the landing gear and the aircraft returned. Considerable damage from the earlier landing was then found to both fuselage and landing gear which had rendered the aircraft unfit to fly.)
  • A332, Dubai UAE, 2014 (On 23 October 2014 an Airbus A330-200 made a sharp brake application to avoid overrunning the turn onto the parking gate at Dubai after flight. A cabin crew member who had left their seat prior to the call from the flight deck to prepare doors, fell and sustained serious neck and back injuries. The investigation found that the sudden braking had led to the fall but concluded that the risk had arisen because required cabin crew procedures had not been followed.)
  • A332, Jakarta Indonesia, 2013 (On 13 December 2013, an Airbus A330 encountered very heavy rain below 100 feet agl just after the autopilot had been disconnected for landing off an ILS approach at Jakarta. The aircraft Commander, as pilot flying, lost visual reference but the monitoring First Officer did not. A go around was neither called nor flown and after drifting in the flare, the aircraft touched down with the right main landing gear on the grass and continued like this for 500 metres before regaining the runway. The Investigation noted that prevailing SOPs clearly required that a go around should have been flown.)
  • A332, Karachi Pakistan, 2014 (On 4 October 2014, the fracture of a hydraulic hose during an A330-200 pushback at night at Karachi was followed by dense fumes in the form of hydraulic fluid mist filling the aircraft cabin and flight deck. After some delay, during which a delay in isolating the APU air bleed exacerbated the ingress of fumes, the aircraft was towed back onto stand and an emergency evacuation completed. During the return to stand, a PBE unit malfunctioned and caught fire when one of the cabin crew attempted to use it which prevented use of the exit adjacent to it for evacuation.)
  • A332, Montego Bay Jamaica, 2008 (Prior to the departure of a Thomas Cook Airlines Airbus A330-200 from Montego Bay Jamaica during the hours of darkness and in normal visibility on 28 October 2008, incorrect takeoff speeds had been input to the FMS by the flight crew without this being recognised. When rotation during take off was, as a consequence, initiated too early, the aircraft failed to become airborne as expected. The aircraft commander, acting as PF, quickly selected TOGA power and the aircraft became airborne before the end of the available runway had been reached and climbed away safely.)
  • A332, Perth WA Australia, 2014 (On 26 November 2014, an Airbus A330-200 was struck by lightning just after arriving at its allocated stand following a one hour post-landing delay after suspension of ramp operations due to an overhead thunderstorm. Adjacent ground services operatives were subject to electrical discharge from the strike and one who was connected to the aircraft flight deck intercom was rendered unconscious. The Investigation found that the equipment and procedures for mitigation of risk from lightning strikes were not wholly effective and also that perceived operational pressure had contributed to a resumption of ground operations which hindsight indicated had been premature.)
  • A332, Sydney Australia 2009 (On 4 July 2009, an Airbus A332 being operated by Jetstar Airways on a scheduled passenger flight from Sydney to Melbourne carried a 750 kg ULD which had been expressly rejected by the aircraft commander during the loading operation without flight crew awareness. There was no reported effect on aircraft handling during the flight.)
  • A332, en-route, Atlantic Ocean, 2009 (On 1 June 2009, an Airbus A330-200 being operated by Air France on a scheduled passenger flight from Rio de Janeiro to Paris CDG as AF447 exited controlled flight and crashed into the sea with the loss of the aircraft and all 228 occupants. It was found that the loss of control followed an inappropriate response by the flight crew to a transient loss of airspeed indications in the cruise which resulted from the vulnerability of the pitot heads to ice crystal icing.)
  • A332, en-route, North Atlantic Ocean, 2001 (On 24 August 2001, an Air Transat Airbus A330-200 eastbound across the North Atlantic at night experienced a double-engine flameout after which Lajes on Terceira Island in the Azores was identified as the best diversion and a successful glide approach and landing there was subsequently achieved. The Investigation found that the flameouts had been the result of fuel exhaustion after a fuel leak from the right engine caused by a pre flight maintenance error. Fuel exhaustion was found to have occurred because the flight crew did not perform the QRH procedure applicable to an in-flight fuel leak.)
  • A332, en-route, near Dar es Salaam Tanzania, 2012 (On 27 February 2012, the crew of an Airbus A330 en route at night and crossing the East African coast at FL360 encountered sudden violent turbulence as they flew into a convective cell not seen on their weather radar and briefly lost control as their aircraft climbed 2000 feet with resultant minor injuries to two occupants. The Investigation concluded that the isolated and rapidly developing cell had not been detected because of crew failure to make proper use of their weather radar, but noted that activation of flight envelope protection and subsequent crew action to recover control had been appropriate.)
  • A332, vicinity Brisbane Australia, 2013 (On 21 November 2013, an A330 rejected its take off from Brisbane after an airspeed indication failure. Following maintenance intervention, a similar airspeed indication fault on the subsequent departure was reported to have been detected after V1. Once airborne, reversion to Alternate Law occurred and slat retraction failed. After an air turnback, it was discovered that the cause of both events was blockage of the No. 1 Pitot Head by a mud-dauber wasp nest which was created during the initial two hour turnround at Brisbane. Investigation of a 2014 event to a Boeing 737 at Brisbane with exactly the same causation was noted.)
  • A332, vicinity Melbourne Australia, 2013 (On 8 March 2013, the crew of a Qantas A330 descended below controlled airspace and to 600 feet agl when still 9nm from the landing runway at Melbourne in day VMC after mismanaging a visual approach flown with the AP engaged. An EGWS Terrain Alert was followed by an EGPWS PULL UP Warning and a full recovery manoeuvre was flown. The Investigation found degraded situational awareness had followed inappropriate use of Flight Management System)
  • A332, vicinity Perth Australia, 2014 (On 9 June 2014, a 'burning odour' of undetermined origin became evident in the rear galley of an Airbus A330 as soon as the aircraft powered up for take off. Initially, it was dismissed as not uncommon and likely to soon dissipate, but it continued and affected cabin crew were unable to continue their normal duties and received oxygen to assist recovery. En route diversion was considered but flight completion chosen. It was found that the rear pressure bulkhead insulation had not been correctly refitted following maintenance and had collapsed into and came into contact with APU bleed air duct.)
  • A332, vicinity Tripoli Libya, 2010 (On 12 May 2010, an Afriqiyah Airways Airbus A330 making a daylight go around from a non precision approach at Tripoli which had been discontinued after visual reference was not obtained at MDA did not sustain the initially established IMC climb and, following flight crew control inputs attributed to the effects of somatogravic illusion and poor CRM, descended rapidly into the ground with a high vertical and forward speed, The aircraft was destroyed by impact forces and the consequent fire and all but one of the 104 occupants were killed.)
  • A332/A345, Khartoum Sudan, 2010 (On 30 September 2010, an A330-200 was about to take off from Khartoum at night in accordance with its clearance when signalling from a hand-held flashlight and a radio call from another aircraft led to this not taking place. The other (on-stand) aircraft crew had found that they had been hit by the A330 as it had taxied past en route to the runway. The Investigation found that although there was local awareness that taxiway use and the provision of surface markings at Khartoum did not ensure safe clearance between aircraft, this was not being communicated by NOTAM or ATIS.)
  • A332/B738, vicinity Amsterdam Netherlands, 2012 (On 13 November 2012, a Garuda Airbus A330 and a KLM Boeing 737 lost separation against each other whilst correctly following radar vectors to parallel approaches at Amsterdam but there was no actual risk of collision as each aircraft had the other in sight and no TCAS RA occurred. The Investigation found that one of the controllers involved had used permitted discretion to override normal procedures during a short period of quiet traffic but had failed to restore normal procedures when it became necessary to do so, thus creating the conflict and the ANSP was recommended to review their procedures.)
  • B737 / A332, Seatle-Tacoma WA USA, 2008 (On 2 July 2008, an Air Tran Airways B737-700 which had just landed at night on runway 34C at Sea-Tac failed to hold clear of runway 34R during taxi as instructed and passed almost directly underneath a North West Airlines A330-200 which had just become airborne from Runway 32R. The Investigation found that the 737 crew had been unaware of their incursion and that the alert provided by ASDE-X had not provided an opportunity for ATC to usefully intervene to stop prevent the potential conflict)
  • C340 / A332, Copenhagen Denmark, 2003 (On 8 September 2003, a privately operated Cessna 340 departing the apron at Copenhagen failed to follow its correctly acknowledged taxi clearance and took a different route which led it to pass the holding point of a runway on which an Air Greenland Airbus 330 had just received take off clearance. ATC observed the error and the clearance was cancelled so that no actual risk of collision had existed. The Investigation considered that the taxi error had occurred at a position conducive to such errors and criticised what it considered were the inappropriate designations of the taxiways involved.)

Further Reading