Hydraulic failure/London TMA

[goaroundflap20]

Hi all,
I am a new member here.Good day to you all.

I fly a heavy jet for a living.I seem to recall in the dark and distant past that there was a requirement to inform ATC (by means of a PAN call)in the London TMA if an aircraft had suffered any hydraulic failure.Clearly if the failure results in degraded flight control then at least a PAN is required.However,on the type I fly there is so much redundancy built-in that,for example,the loss of a single hydraulic system is an operational non-event.
If a crew volunteer to ATC that a single hydraulic failure has occured either prior to or within the London TMA is it then a requirement of ATC to "encourage" the aircraft to divert elsewhere?(rationale=built up area/blocked runway/etc).
Cheers
Ikarus:cool:

[Over+Out]

Hi, I'm a TC Controller (now at Swanwick on Sea) and I am not aware of any such instruction.

[Jerricho]

Isn't there something about a requirement for a runway inspection after an aircraft with a hydraulic problem has landed?

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Any hydraulic failure constitues a Full Emergency so it is essential to advise ATC. Runway inspection will follow such a flight due to the possibility of leaking fluid.

[goaroundflap20]

Heathrow Director,
could you oblige and supply a reference for that information please.Our flight Crew Instructions make a vague reference to a declaration of an emergency.I am reliably informed that there are specific instructions for ATC within their manuals.
Cheers
Ikarus

[Roffa]

gaf20,

Whether or not you choose to make a PAN call or not ATC most definitely will want to know if you have any sort of hydraulic issue (even if the a/c handling is not affected) as the runway must be inspected following your landing.

Taking LHR as an example... if you landed normally mentioning nothing until you vacated when, "oh by the way we did have a hydraulic issue", there'd likely then be multiple go-arounds behind you and a good few minutes of chaos.

However mention in good time that you have/had a hydraulic issue but require no special handling then expect a normal approach but with a suitable gap behind you to allow the runway to be inspected after you land and no chaos.

There's nothing in the Terminal Control MATS Pt 2 that says you must declare an emergency but it may be the case that the airport Pt 2 states that any hydraulic issue is to be classed, as far as they're concerned, as a Full Emergency. That doesn't really affect you but rather just gets the appropriate services on the ground ready just in case. Possibly overkill but it's good practice for all concerned.

ATC will not encourage you to divert anywhere but ATC can be requested to pass a message on behalf of the BAA (at Heathrow or Gatwick) to request that an a/c with technical difficulties that may result in a runway being blocked consider diverting somewhere else.

That message will not be passed though if the a/c has declared an emergency, has reported a fuel shortage or the weather conditions elsewhere precludes a diversion.

[PPRuNe Radar]

Any hydraulic failure constitues a Full Emergency so it is essential to advise ATC.

If it is being classed as a full emergency, then I guess it depends on who is doing the declaring.

For a pilot in an aircraft with triple hydraulic systems, the loss of one might only increase risk margins slightly, but is certainly not going to cause the aircraft any handling problems. You might not even need to declare a PAN.

The ATC definition of a full emergency, for aerodrome emergency orders, is one where the aircraft is known or suspected to be in such trouble that there is the danger of an accident.

Where the pilot has advised of a hydraulic failure but is able to confirm to ATC that the defect will not normally involve any serious difficulty in effecting a safe landing, then a Local Standby fits the bill.

Provided you communicate the latter, there should be no need for ATC to do anything over and above that they would for any other local standby.

It's all down to communication. Be clear about the problem and it's effects on the operation of the aircraft. Then ATC can react accordingly :ok:

[Gonzo]

Where the pilot has advised of a hydraulic failure but is able to confirm to ATC that the defect will not normally involve any serious difficulty in effecting a safe landing, then a Local Standby fits the bill.

Errr, not quite.

It all depends on what's in the aerodrome's Emergency Orders and thus in the tower's MATS Part 2. Ours states that an a/c suffering any hydraulic failure will be subject to a Full Emergency.

[PPRuNe Radar]

Fair enough. Presumably the operators all know this as well ... err, don't they ?? :)

There also appears to be a bit of a mismatch in joined up thinking between TC and EGLL as well.

There's nothing in the Terminal Control MATS Pt 2 that says you must declare an emergency but it may be the case that the airport Pt 2 states that any hydraulic issue is to be classed, as far as they're concerned, as a Full Emergency.

[vespasia]

However mention in good time that you have/had a hydraulic issue but require no special handling then expect a normal approach but with a suitable gap behind you to allow the runway to be inspected after you land and no chaos.


Already partly covered by Gonzo, but you will also have a Full Emergency in place. Same at LGW. Any notification of hydraulic problems, however minor to the crew, require a mandatory Full Emergency by ATC. We have no discretion on this one. I believe that part of the reasoning is that if a hydraulic system has failed then there's at least a chance that hydraulic fluid may have found its way to places it could do more serious damage (but I'm ready to be corrected!)

:uhoh:

[Roffa]

There also appears to be a bit of a mismatch in joined up thinking between TC and EGLL as well.

Not really.

We tell the tower what sort of problem the inbound a/c has, if any special handling is reported as being required and whether it's declared a PAN or MAYDAY and the tower tell us what sort of gap they want in front and behind.

What the tower then do themselves with respect to Local Standby, Full Emergency etc is pretty much transparent to TC and they won't necessarily, nor need, tell us. We (TC) are just interested in the gaps in front and behind, whether we can use the other runway in the interim and then when we can go back to dual runway ops after the subject a/c has landed, assuming all is okay.

[goaroundflap20]

Thank you all for your replies.
The reason I asked the question is that I was in a flight simulator recently for my bi-annual check and I was faced with a single hydraulic failure while flying towards the London TMA.I did declare a PAN after actioning the QRH(checklist)and for all the reasons you have come up with I believe it was a correct call.

In the debrief the check Captain queried my PAN call.He stated that he had never heard of a requirement to inform ATC by means of a PAN.He asked me for a reference and I replied that I thought it was in the AIP.
Hence the query.
Ikarus

[mr.777]

EGKK is the same as EGLL...hydraulic failure of any kind will mean a full emergency on the ground and increased spacing behind you, normally 10 miles, to accomodate the runway inspection.

[West Coast]

Ours states that an a/c suffering any hydraulic failure will be subject to a Full Emergency.

Speaking as a pilot, and somewhat of a knowledgeable systems person. Perhaps many years ago this might have been advisable, but in the current triple redundant systems that mark many newer aircraft loss of a single system has minimal impact if any.
I get it, your simply following your sop's, but its one that needs reviewing.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<It all depends on what's in the aerodrome's Emergency Orders and thus in the tower's MATS Part 2. Ours states that an a/c suffering any hydraulic failure will be subject to a Full Emergency.>>

Thanks Gonzo - I was beginning to think my mind had gone completely.

For pilot info it works something like this.. A pilot advises ATC of a problem, not necessarily by a PAN or MAYDAY. ATC then decide, based on their local SOPs or other factors, what type of emergency to declare.
If the emergency is advised in advance by an arriving aircraft - engine problem, hydraulics, etc., the emergency is usually instigated by the ATC Supervisor at the airfield following advise from TC or other agency. However, if an emergency occurs on the ground the controller in contact with the aircraft will take initial emergency action (press the button and make a standard call to AFS). This is followed up with a more detailed call within a few minutes, usually by the Supervisor.

Once the emergency is declared the only agency which can change things is the Fire Service, but ATC is the agency which officially promulgates that change by making the necessary phone calls. What usually happens is the AFS rings ATC, or advises by radio, and says "Downgrade the Full Emergency to Local Standby". ATC then uses an emergency telephone line to make the official announcement. It's a bit more complex than that, but that's it in a nutshell.

[spekesoftly]

Once the emergency is declared the only agency which can change things is the Fire ServiceJust to add that whilst only the Fire Service can Downgrade, ATC can and will "Upgrade" a call-out (e.g. Local Standby to Full Emergency) when appropriate.

[anotherthing]

Goaroundflap20

There are a couple of different perspectives to view the scenario you mention.

With a triple redundant system, I would hazard a guess that when you look at your emergency cards at the subsequent actions, there is no mention of 'Land Immediately', 'Land as soon as possible', or 'Land as soon as practicable' (or whatever the terminology is now... I'm referring to military flying days). Therefore there is no need for you, as a pilot to call a PAN... as has been stated, it is a bit of a non operational event.

However, ATC need to know for the purposes of possible runway contamination, therefore as a pilot you need to get the message across that you have had a hydraulic failure; you can continue to operate as a normal flight, and that it is for info only.

Unfortunately in these days of heightened security etc, visits by ATCOs to the flight deck (certainly in the UK) are hard to come by thus leading to less exchange of knowledge as to how the person on the other side of the microphone operates, or what he/she expect from either ATC or from the pilot.

[Mister Geezer]

It would be interesting to establish from the ATCOs just what they mean by a 'Hydraulic Failure'. Are you referring to a total loss or a partial loss? A full loss is probably bad news but the latter for me would probably not constitute a full emergency from my point of view when operating into the likes of LHR and LGW which are more than large enough with runway length (I fly a 146).

With a partial loss I may advise that we need a bit of extra spacing behind us for a potentially longer landing roll and it obviously depends on the circumstances but I would not necessarily declare a PAN since safety won't have been affected with just a simple loss of one system out of the two and a large airfield to look forward to when you land!

This could perhaps be a double edged sword where a flight crew member suddenly mentions 'Hydraulics' on the R/T and unknown to him/her, ATC have initiated a full emergency on the airfield. Perhaps best practice would be to initiate a full emergency only if a crew call for it since it could perhaps be a bit embarrassing for us if we mention to the Pax that we have a minor problem with a partial hydraulic loss and are then greeted by the blue lights when we land!!!

Roffa
ATC will not encourage you to divert anywhere but ATC can be requested to pass a message on behalf of the BAA (at Heathrow or Gatwick) to request that an a/c with technical difficulties that may result in a runway being blocked consider diverting somewhere else.

The BAA have already stuck their head above the parapet with this one since some wag from the BAA said that if you have a tech issue then the BAA would prefer that you didn't land/divert to LHR. BALPA quickly brought them back into the real world and that statement was retracted!

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<Perhaps best practice would be to initiate a full emergency only if a crew call for it since it could perhaps be a bit embarrassing for us if we mention to the Pax that we have a minor problem with a partial hydraulic loss and are then greeted by the blue lights when we land!!!>>

The rule - at Heathrow and Gatwick at least - is ANY hydraulic failure constitues a Full Emergency.

I'm really not at all happy with your statement above. You sound like so many pilots I've had contact with - "We have one engine u/s but do not need the safety services"., etc. Why?? Safety surely comes far above the "image" to the pax. When I fly I'd like to know that the bloke up front has my safety in mind. US pilots seem to go the other way and will, very sensibly, ask for the "services" to be out for just about any technical problem.

Just explain to the pax that there is a technical problem and for safety reasons the emergency services will standby.

[Mister Geezer]

Firstly, the loss of an engine and a hydraulic problem could very well be chalk and cheese when compared to each other. To compare the two and then direct criticism to a crew for not declaring an emergency for a problem which is purely stated as a 'Hydraulic' problem is shortsighted.

ATCOs need to be aware that aircraft are designed with a significant amount of redundancy in many systems nowadays so what may seem like a crisis to an ATCO could purely be viewed as a niggle by the Flight Crew. I appreciate that ATC need to make a mental model of the situation (possibly difficult with some foreign operators) but jumping to conclusions based on past experiences could lead you up the wrong garden path. The element of trust has been eroded - you are trained to control and we are trained to fly. The two tasks are very different and both require specalised training and that training is in depth for the aircraft type that we are trained on. I would advise you not to speculate on what flight crew may be faced with or what flight crew are doing since you could well end up grabbing the wrong end of the stick.

I have no hesitation in declaring a PAN or a MAYDAY - providing the situation merits it. However with the redundancy built into many aircraft systems nowadays - in some cases it could take multiple failures of the same system for the situation to 'concern the safety of the aircraft', which after all is the rough definition of a PAN! So just because some one mentions hydraulics (or any other systems failure) on the R/T does not suddenly signify that the safety of the aircraft is brought into question.

[anotherthing]

HD

This thread is about hydraulic failure - when did engine failure come into it?

Mister Geezer is giving a perfectly valid explanation of the way he would operate if the situation that this thread is alluding to came up. It has to do with airmanship, company SOPS, and above all aircraft design.
If the emergency cards do not call for a LAND Immediately/ASAP/As Soon As Practicable (or whatever the wording is nowadays in civvy aircraft), then there is no need to call a PAN.

The pilot should in the event of hydraulics, inform ATC just in case there is runway contamination.

How ATC react to that info is up to the unit orders - be it a full emergency, local standby etc.

Maybe Mats part 2 for units needs to be updated or, as is more likely, they are fine as they stand because they work to the lowest common denominator i.e. not all aircraft have triple redundancy systems etc... better to go full emergency then have the AFS downgrade it. Hell, the AFS could even downgrade it on the advice of a company engineer.

HD, the good old days of when you were an ATCO have long gone I am afraid (and I don't mean that to be derogatory... I think that the opportunities for exchange of ideas etc were much better than they are now)... the flow of information and knowledge has reduced, in no small part due to the difficulties in getting a jump seat ride.

I'm really not at all happy with your statement above. You sound like so many pilots I've had contact with - "We have one engine u/s but do not need the safety services"., etc. Why?? Safety surely comes far above the "image" to the pax.

I'm sure Mister Geezer and the other professionals out there are not at all happy with such a sweeping statement either.

I would no sooner tell a pilot how I think he should fly his aircraft than I would expect a pilot to tell me how to control.
I have extensive military flying experience, but it's a moot point... it was military and it's in the past. I may have opinions and I may have an educated guess as to the mindset of a civilian pilot, but I would never deign to infer that I was more knowledgeable than them.

[Mister Geezer]

I agree that the fam flights for you guys can help in these situations but they are still available :ok: . I have arranged two fam flights for ATC staff (both post 9/11) with my present company and my last and it was all easily arranged and all above board. With regards to my present and previous employer, both had a blurb in the ops manual saying that fam flights were allowed for ATC staff providing prior permission was sought through the normal channels. I am not sure what the rules are for every UK operator but I would hazard a guess that most of them would still welcome you with open arms!! :)