A320 Elec Emer Config fuel penalty

[John Citizen]

What is the fuel penalty factor for an A320 whilst in emergency electrical configuration ? :confused:

[Fly3]

A good question. I didn't find one in the fuel penalty factors/ECAM alert table.

[Bula]

About 3%. 1% for the RAT, and 2% as the EAI fails in the open position with an A/C 1 and 2 fault, regardless of switch position and/or ECAM memo.

[A4]

But fuel penalty due to RAT is hardly your most pressing concern. You'll also have a LAND ASAP so should be pointing at the nearest airport. I appreciate that there may be extreme cases where you're out on a TANGO Route (UK) or something similar, but I'd be more concerned about the penalty of dropping to 10,000 ft to enable smoke removal. Either way, it would be a good day to have stayed in bed. :ouch:

[John Citizen]

You'll also have a LAND ASAP so should be pointing at the nearest airport.

My version of the Flight Crew Training Manual says differently :confused:

Although the ECAM displays LAND ASAP in red, it would be unwise to attempt an approach at a poorly equipped airfield in marginal weather. However, prolonged flight in this configuration is not recommended.

Therefore, if the nearest airport weather is marginal, but another airport slightly further away has ideal weather, how can you determine if you will have enough fuel to get there if limited fuel ? You might make it :O, you might not :{

[vilas]

John Citzen
You have fuel on board for Air miles to destination plus alternate. A diiversion distance has to be less than that otherwise you would not be diverting there. This reduced distance should take care of extra 3%. I find that the tables only cater for more than 3% penalty.

[A4]

John C

Not sure which version of the FCTM you've got.....but mine says LAND ASAP. The QRH Procedure, top of the page, LAND ASAP (RED).

If you've got uncontrollable smoke, it's "do or die". A Commander has the authority to deviate from SOP's, rules and regulations IF the aircraft, it's occupants or people/property on the ground are in Immediate danger. It could be argued that shooting an approach in marginal conditions increases the risk - but delaying possibly guarentees an accident (SR111?)

If you fly in Europe, we have a plethora of available airfields to land at - more remote areas may require use of the "AT ANY TIME" part of the QRH i.e. Ditch/forced landing.

[vilas]

A 4 and JohnC
You have misunderstood the question. It is not induced ELEC EMER configuration due to smoke situation. It is actual ELEC EMER situation. The LAND ASAP meaning slightly differs in these two situations. In smoke Airbus is very categoric that you must be on ground in 15 mts if the issue is not resolved immediately. In that the action Consider ---Immediate Landing implies Ditching,Off airport landing, Tailwind or overweight landing. But in Actual that is Irreversible ELEC EMER it is possible to consider slightly extended flight for better weather conditions. My point is diversion has to be closer than destination and that difference in distance will look after 3% fuel.

[A4]

Ah.....good point! :O I was indeed thinking of SMOKE to selected EMER ELEC CONF (there's another thread running on similar topic). It would be pretty extreme (but not impossible) circumstances that you would not be able to get on the ground somewhere before it goes quiet.

[Natstrackalpha]

If you've got uncontrollable smoke, it's "do or die".


and if the smoke is backed up by a fire in cabin or cargo hold you have 2.5 mins to put it out, if not, you will not be able to. If you are not able to then you have 17 mins to get down, landed and evacuated. If you fail to do this in 17 mins - the fire will destroy the aircraft.

[Uplinker]

Hi Vilas,

Just a question - not doubting you, but where does Airbus mention getting on the ground within 15 mins? - I've not noticed it in our QRH.

I ask, because this is something I often bring up with my trainers - the CAA have stated that in-flight fires or smoke situations which stayed airborne longer than 14 mins have had fatalities - but when I mention this the trainers seem unimpressed, and they do not push getting on the ground within this time. Odd, because the company I work for are very safety oriented.

[Fly3]

IIRC there was a study carried out in the USA which concluded that, from the time an aircraft fire was deemed to be uncontrollable, you would have only about 11 minutes to put it on the ground. Unfortunately I cannot find the reference now.

[mm43]

This Sky Library Article (http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/In-Flight_Fire:_Guidance_for_Flight_Crews) has some good overall guidance on the subject, and further links to a number of authoritative sources.

[vilas]

Uplinker
It was a presentation given by their Director of training in various seminars. It is available on Airbus World.

[Uplinker]

OK, thanks.


(sorry for late acknowledgement - have been away)