A320 Engine Fail
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Above the Horizon
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A320 Engine Fail
In the FCTM of A320 in the section dealing with Engine Failure after V1 it is mentioned that the Flight Crew should delay the acceleration for securing the engine. May I know the reason for delaying the acceleration? Thanks.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For securing the engine what else? If you couldn't secure the engine by minimum acceleration altitude then accelerate when it is secured but do it before reaching the maximum acceleration altitude.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Oxford
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Max Accel or Secure
For the sake of argument, the FCTM talks about delaying acceleration until the Secure. For a fire this is the second shot. My question is, if you have the failure at say 1700 and your max Acceleration Alt is calculated as 2400, if you haven’t got the second shot in as you get to 2400, should you level and accelerate and clean up and then continue to secure?
This is done in FLEX, so no TOGA 10 mins limit, but the book says Take off power, so the 10 mins could still figure.
This is done in FLEX, so no TOGA 10 mins limit, but the book says Take off power, so the 10 mins could still figure.
Hi Roguedent and Boyington,
Are you guys on the same Type rating course?
you've both asked the same question slightly differently. maybe time to talk to your instructor, to make sure you really nail down the fundamentals of this Abnormal
Accel or Secure A320
Are you guys on the same Type rating course?
you've both asked the same question slightly differently. maybe time to talk to your instructor, to make sure you really nail down the fundamentals of this Abnormal
Accel or Secure A320
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Oxford
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Roj,
Not on the same course. Delay may be anything, from handling to navigating to ATC. The V1 cut works well if you lose the donk after V1, but when you have both and then a fire (still producing) you can eat up your window between start of the failure/fire to the fly smart Max Accel height quite quick. Hence the question on my other thread that is the 10 mins at take-off power a higher priority than the secure?
Not on the same course. Delay may be anything, from handling to navigating to ATC. The V1 cut works well if you lose the donk after V1, but when you have both and then a fire (still producing) you can eat up your window between start of the failure/fire to the fly smart Max Accel height quite quick. Hence the question on my other thread that is the 10 mins at take-off power a higher priority than the secure?
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: United States of Europe
Age: 40
Posts: 502
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The max EOAA as you know is based on 10min of T/O thrust. (I.e. up to selection of MCT thrust).
It caters for the worst case scenario:
-Eng Fail at Vef (1 sec before V1)
-No selection of TOGA (if FLEX planned)
-OAT vs Flex margin not considered, i.e.: for density altitude it is assumed that OAT is equal to flex. Achieved performance will be much better than assumed, in other words.
The above holds true for FlySmart where the Max EOAA is actually a derived figure for each single calculation.
In case of paper performance you will see that there is a single Max EOAA published for the whole range of TOW and conditions. This means that inherently there are even more margins.
Summary:
-Max EOAA is a very academic number. Good to enhance your Situation Awareness, especially in hot/high, limiting cases.
-We start the Chrono at T/O for a reason.
-Use your common sense.
It caters for the worst case scenario:
-Eng Fail at Vef (1 sec before V1)
-No selection of TOGA (if FLEX planned)
-OAT vs Flex margin not considered, i.e.: for density altitude it is assumed that OAT is equal to flex. Achieved performance will be much better than assumed, in other words.
The above holds true for FlySmart where the Max EOAA is actually a derived figure for each single calculation.
In case of paper performance you will see that there is a single Max EOAA published for the whole range of TOW and conditions. This means that inherently there are even more margins.
Summary:
-Max EOAA is a very academic number. Good to enhance your Situation Awareness, especially in hot/high, limiting cases.
-We start the Chrono at T/O for a reason.
-Use your common sense.
Thanks Roj,
Not on the same course. Delay may be anything, from handling to navigating to ATC. The V1 cut works well if you lose the donk after V1, but when you have both and then a fire (still producing) you can eat up your window between start of the failure/fire to the fly smart Max Accel height quite quick. Hence the question on my other thread that is the 10 mins at take-off power a higher priority than the secure?
Not on the same course. Delay may be anything, from handling to navigating to ATC. The V1 cut works well if you lose the donk after V1, but when you have both and then a fire (still producing) you can eat up your window between start of the failure/fire to the fly smart Max Accel height quite quick. Hence the question on my other thread that is the 10 mins at take-off power a higher priority than the secure?
I think Open Des’ summary might help you. The Airbus is a funny aeroplane, and the manuals are very different to Boeing, and even though they say the Airbus will look after itself, it won’t, you still need to do that piloty thing.
I’m in the middle of it too, as a refresher after 5 years on a Boeing, and it’s a struggle to get back into it the “French way”
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Oxford
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was using common sense. I want to get the fire out, but also don’t want the STC then academically failing me for going above a max accel height. Older aircraft, I preferred the start the clock and use that. In essence, be better is the answer. If the Crono is the master, then please point that out in the FCTM, as the max Accel seems to be limiting the way I read it. (FCTM-AO-020 p11/34). ‘....the flight crew MUST NOT exceed the engine out maximum acceleration altitude....’
Common sense isn’t an airbus trait. Surely a memory item to secure an engine would be common sense, instead of timely ECAM
Common sense isn’t an airbus trait. Surely a memory item to secure an engine would be common sense, instead of timely ECAM
See, now you’re getting it
The FCOM limitation is 10 minutes, no mention of a defined altitude.
The FCTM, says an altitude that can be achieved with engines at take off power for 10 mins. No mention of a hard altitude limit. Our Fly smart doesn’t calculate an altitude.
The FCOM over rules the FCTM, so in my world, I would be securing before accelerating, but once again, your training organisation should be able sort this out for you
The FCOM limitation is 10 minutes, no mention of a defined altitude.
The FCTM, says an altitude that can be achieved with engines at take off power for 10 mins. No mention of a hard altitude limit. Our Fly smart doesn’t calculate an altitude.
The FCOM over rules the FCTM, so in my world, I would be securing before accelerating, but once again, your training organisation should be able sort this out for you
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Oxford
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Roj
I think this is my problem. I'm used to the books being correct and not hopping around for info.
When a book says "....flight crew MUST NOT exceed the engine out acceleration altitude..." FCTM AO-020 p11/34, then you kinda take that to mean what it says.
Back to old school trust the clock
The FCOM over rules the FCTM, so in my world, I would be securing before accelerating, but once again, your training organisation should be able sort this out for you
When a book says "....flight crew MUST NOT exceed the engine out acceleration altitude..." FCTM AO-020 p11/34, then you kinda take that to mean what it says.
Back to old school trust the clock
Don't trust the Airbus, its just waiting to bite you on the ass Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: N5109.2W10.5
Posts: 720
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Roguedent,
FCTM actually says "If the decision has been taken to delay the acceleration, the flight crew must not exceed the engine out MAXIMUM acceleration altitude."
It does mean what it says.
I'm used to the books being correct and not hopping around for info. When a book says "....flight crew MUST NOT exceed the engine out acceleration altitude...then you kinda take that to mean what it says."
It does mean what it says.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Flagstaff, AZ. USA
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As more than one sim check airman has told me..."the engine is out on the wing, and the fire is inside the engine. You're better off concentrating on aircraft control and terrain clearance for 90 seconds more, than screwing up the cleanup procedures, ECAM and terrain separation if you try to put out the fire in the initial climbout."
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: N5109.2W10.5
Posts: 720
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"...and the fire is inside the engine."
"The investigation into the accident established that the engine suffered a fatigue failure of its fifth stage Low Pressure Compressor wheel and that parts of the broken wheel had burst through the compressor casing. The engine fuel supply Line was severed and the escaping fuel then ignited. The fire continued to burn because of an omission to close the fuel shut-off valve by pulling the fire shut-off handle when the Engine Fire Drill was carried out."
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Flagstaff, AZ. USA
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not necessarily. See B707 G-ARWE
"The investigation into the accident established that the engine suffered a fatigue failure of its fifth stage Low Pressure Compressor wheel and that parts of the broken wheel had burst through the compressor casing. The engine fuel supply Line was severed and the escaping fuel then ignited. The fire continued to burn because of an omission to close the fuel shut-off valve by pulling the fire shut-off handle when the Engine Fire Drill was carried out."
"The investigation into the accident established that the engine suffered a fatigue failure of its fifth stage Low Pressure Compressor wheel and that parts of the broken wheel had burst through the compressor casing. The engine fuel supply Line was severed and the escaping fuel then ignited. The fire continued to burn because of an omission to close the fuel shut-off valve by pulling the fire shut-off handle when the Engine Fire Drill was carried out."
Yep.
As I said, my current carrier says wait until cleaned up. One of my previous (pre-multi-merger) carriers used to say put out an engine fire beginning at 400, no questions asked.
Plus ça change...
