Aer Lingus flight EI110 makes emergency landing in JFK

[Mark in CA]

Failure of hydraulic system forces Aer Lingus 757 to return to JFK after departure. No reports of injuries. Brake fire extinguished after emergency landing.

Print report: Aer Lingus plane makes emergency landing at JFK · TheJournal.ie (http://www.thejournal.ie/aer-lingus-flight-emergency-landing-jfk-2356989-Sep2015/)

[Speed_Alive_V1]

Reports that it was a single hydraulic system failure yet reported that it landed sans flaps extended

Not a professional but thought it would need to be dual system failure for that to occur?

[Speed_Alive_V1]

Also, good ol the Journal showing a A330-200 file photo for a 757 report...

[BDD]

When did Aer Lingus get 757's??

[Speed_Alive_V1]

They have three 757's on wet lease from Air Contractors

[misd-agin]

I like the comment about jets having standby motors if the hydraulics fail. Which hydraulic flight controlled models would have that? I've yet to see one.

[Mr.Brown]

The Ram Air Turbine is an emergency backup for hydraulics used on quiet a few types.
On the 757 this provides hydraulic power to the centre system for flight controls.

[Mr.Brown]

Gear doors still down in the pics so it looks like a left Hydraulic system failure..

[Jetjock330]

The loss of a single hydraulic amongst 3 systems is not an emergency!

[Dannyboy39]

...well on the Airbus, surely if the yellow hydraulics fail, the green takes over, with the blue still there as another standby? I guess the B757 is a similar system?

[anartificialhorizon]

Listening to the ATC recording, tea and biscuits all round.:D

Really calm and professional all round. Crew were not rushed and kept everone informed. ATC supported as required.

Reassuring.

[sb_sfo]

I'd bemoan the fact that an apparent adult ATC guy cannot convert kilos to pounds in this day and age.

[Airbubba]

Really calm and professional all round. Crew were not rushed and kept everone informed. ATC supported as required.


Yep, nice job. :ok:

The loss of a single hydraulic amongst 3 systems is not an emergency!

About the only thing I would have done differently is to declare an emergency.

The recent thinking, under U.S. regs anyway, is that it gives you carte blanche with whatever decisions you make as PIC. And it's CYA for stuff like landing back at JFK without getting re-dispatched.

Of course, if you have time and remember, you get on the sat phone and have a big group think with all the geniuses on the ground back at headquarters (kinda like PPRuNe, come to think of it ;)). But, if they give advice that is later found to be wrong and you believed it, it was your fault because you trusted them. I had a colleague on the sat phone with maintenance pop and reset a circuit breaker in flight that fixed a problem only to find out afterward that the feds were hopping mad because the procedure was not listed in the AOM.

Reports that it was a single hydraulic system failure yet reported that it landed sans flaps extended

Not a professional but thought it would need to be dual system failure for that to occur?

I'm thinking one possibility is that they perhaps took off with either 5 or 15 degrees of flaps and got a trailing edge flap asymmetry indication when the flaps were retracted after takeoff accompanied by the indication of loss of left system hydraulic pressure (TE FLAP ASYM and L HYD SYS PRESS). The asymmetry would prevent alternate flap extension on the trailing edge flaps (or leading edge slats if they had LE SLAT ASYM).

In years past I've seen it debated here and elsewhere but loss of a major hydraulic system prior to a crossing almost always means you are turning back in an ETOPS plane in my opinion.

The old argument would have been that you don't really need the left hydraulic system on the 757 until you land and then you're going to have to use alternate systems to lower the gear and flaps anyway so you might as well do it on the other side of the pond.

But, you usually don't know what other systems, if any, were damaged by the event that caused the loss of hydraulics so not making the crossing is a very wise move in my view.

In this Aer Lingus case, I suspect some flaps were still extended and locked from moving by an asymmetry so the no-go decision was a done deal.

[deptrai]

About the only thing I would have done differently is to declare an emergency.

The recent thinking, under U.S. regs anyway, is that it gives you carte blanche with whatever decisions you make as PIC. And it's CYA for stuff like landing back at JFK without getting re-dispatched.

I understand the CYA stuff...but seriously, if someone would give them a hard time for returning to JFK without getting re-dispatched, they need to get their heads checked. Decades ago I was taught that declaring an emergency means "grave and imminent danger to the aircraft or lives", and that tying up scarce resources is not a good practice if there is no such grave and imminent danger. But maybe I'm naive.

[misd-agin]

You don't have to get "re-dispatched" for a diversion, ATB, or emergency.

[misd-agin]

RAT's and PTU's are backup sources of power for hydraulics. If that's what the poster meant that's fine. If he believes there's backup systems for the loss of hydraulics he's in for a big surprise.

[Landflap]

Cripes, here we go again. Yes, Mayday is "Save our souls" ; Pan Pan Pan is a state of urgency. One out of three hydraulics failing is not, in itself, a state of "Emergency". Sounds like there were other failures going on that led the guys to elect for an immediate return , declaring a mayday, preparing for overweight landing & limited braking. A single hydraulic failure, out of three, in itself would have me run the check-list and then ask the Senior Cabin attendant what's for Dinner .

[TURIN]

I like the comment about jets having standby motors if the hydraulics fail. Which hydraulic flight controlled models would have that? I've yet to see one.

787 has a couple of electrically powered spoilers.
I think the A380 has hydraulic power pack actuators which are independent of the main central hydraulic systems. I think the VC10 and Vulcan were leaders in this field.

[Prober]

Re PTU’s etc in post #17. Certainly on the 75, the purpose of the PTU is to drive some remnants of the main (L) system in the event of a L Hyd loss of contents (Flaps, gear, nose wheel steering and, for ETOPS, a hyd gen). The trick, of course, is to know where the actual leak has occurred. If it is above the stack pipe, the PTU will operate as per the tin, but if it is below it, then “Misd-agin’s” comment about a surprise is nearer the mark. However, there is one fairly big clue as to where the leak might lie, thus obviating any surprises later on.:ok:
Prober

[Airbubba]

You don't have to get "re-dispatched" for a diversion, ATB, or emergency.

If you decide to divert or do an air turnback without declaring an emergency, I would suggest that it would be extremely wise to coordinate with your dispatcher under Part 121 rules these days. Just my opinion. ;)

I'll agree that you don't have to be re-dispatched to proceed to a listed alternate for weather.

I understand the CYA stuff...but seriously, if someone would give them a hard time for returning to JFK without getting re-dispatched, they need to get their heads checked. Decades ago I was taught that declaring an emergency means "grave and imminent danger to the aircraft or lives", and that tying up scarce resources is not a good practice if there is no such grave and imminent danger. But maybe I'm naive.

It sounds nutty and in some cases changes nothing from a safety standpoint, but the latest guidance we are given is when in doubt, declare the emergency. Maybe it comes from our OI (the person formerly known as the POI). It's a compliance thing, the thinking is that if you deviated from your dispatched route using your captain's authority in an emergency situation, why didn't you declare an emergency if you claim to have had an emergency situation?

Here's a reference:

§ 121.557 Emergencies: Domestic and flag operations.

(a) In an emergency situation that requires immediate decision and action the pilot in command may take any action that he considers necessary under the circumstances. In such a case he may deviate from prescribed operations procedures and methods, weather minimums, and this chapter, to the extent required in the interests of safety.

A single hydraulic failure, out of three, in itself would have me run the check-list and then ask the Senior Cabin attendant what's for Dinner .

Again, I'd be less inclined to continue across the pond like that than in years past. And, if you're going to lose a hydraulic system on a '75, I would say the left system is the worst one to do without. But, it's been a long time since I took the oral...

I realize that the Aer Lingus wet lease was not operated under an FAA certificate and there may have been some incentive not to declare an emergency under their operating rules.

But yes, I would have declared an emergency in this case. At least the trucks were already there to quickly put out the wheel fire on landing. :ok:

[deptrai]

I'll agree that you don't have to be re-dispatched to proceed to a listed alternate for weather.

I think there is an underlying (common sense?) assumption that the departure airport is planned as an alternate destination, else FAR 121 wouldn't need to specify criteria for listing a takeoff alternate. Disclaimer: I am no expert on FAR 121 and obviously everyone should check with their outfit rather than listening to anonymous posters like me.

[slowjet]

Airbubs, with considerable respect and creaping the thread a bit, you would REALLY declare an emergency because you didn't fancy crossing the pond on two out of three hydraulic systems ? Gosh ! May I suggest that rather than asking the Senior Cabin Attendant " Drills complete........What's for Dinner, Luv?" you might , at least, return, hold, burn off fuel to a lower landing weight, and for CRM pundits, call company, call Mum, call wifey or ex Girl-friend, have a team meeting with the crew in the forward galley, check with junior CA if she agrees with the team decision.....................er, and then, Blimey, land. Landflap suggests that there was more to this than just a single system failure. Back up on the Boeings is immense and two out of three hydraulic systems out would be "Land at the nearest". One out of three, even a major system, is catered for. I agree with Landflap. CONTINUE. Burning off fuel all the way, loadsa time to consider options. Crikey, not your day if you lose another system over the pond because that means Dinner at Goose or Kef ! Not convinced that even that is an"Emergency" ! State of "Urgency"......yes. Depends on what's on the menu at Goose or Kef. Hate fish.

Just to be clear ARTIFICIAL HORIZON ; "Tea & biscuits" with the Management for us UK cousins means that you are in deep doo dah ! No cause for Celebration (!)

Safe flying boys. Boeing boys know that if you are in trouble................LOWER THE RAT !!

[JW411]

As a matter of interest, have you ever been in a situation where you have had to lower the RAT? I can remember doing an air test on a DC-10 which involved lowering the RAT. It worked fine but it made one hell of a noise (at 250 knots). God knows what it would have sounded like at 0.82M at 30W.

[Airbubba]

Airbubs, with considerable respect and creaping the thread a bit, you would REALLY declare an emergency because you didn't fancy crossing the pond on two out of three hydraulic systems ? Gosh ! May I suggest that rather than asking the Senior Cabin Attendant " Drills complete........What's for Dinner, Luv?" you might , at least, return, hold, burn off fuel to a lower landing weight, and for CRM pundits, call company, call Mum, call wifey or ex Girl-friend, have a team meeting with the crew in the forward galley, check with junior CA if she agrees with the team decision.....................er, and then, Blimey, land.

I think you're starting to understand the mindset of this here new fangled CRM stuff. In fact, it's called something else these days, I can't rightly remember. :)

And a lot of these 'new' ways of thinking in the U.S. do seem to filter down over the pond after a while to other countries. Like CVR's (I know, invented by an Ozmate), locked cockpit doors, CRM, random drug and alcohol tests, FA on the flight deck when a pilot is absent etc.

My comments above reflect my understanding of current U.S. thinking on declaring an emergency. In recent years it seems, to me, that we are taught to explicitly declare an emergency as a precaution even with a fairly minor abnormality.

But, as I observed earlier, there may be a good reason not to do so under the regs the EI wet lease crew were using.

Even though they didn't declare an emergency, I would suggest that it was a good thing the fire trucks were at the runway when the wheel fire broke out. As demonstrated recently with the BA 777 in LAS, even a 90 second delay can make a big difference.

Also, I get the strong impression that doing a crossing with a major hydraulic systems failure prior to going oceanic is less warmly embraced by the FAA than in years past. Of course, the bean counters would have you fly across on one motor if it saved the company money. :D

Thinking about it a little more and listening to the well edited LiveAtc recording, it may be the case that the EI 757 only had a left hydraulic failure without any flap asymmetry and chose not to do the crossing. The crew said there may be hydraulic fluid on the runway, did the failure occur at gear retraction perhaps? It would have been a flaps 20 landing back at JFK, possibly still overweight even with the holding while running the checklists.

I'm told some B-752's have fuel dump, I've never knowingly seen one. And a couple have inflight refueling.

Is there some place online a preliminary report of this incident will be posted?

I haven't seen anything so far on the FAA's Preliminary Accident and Incident web page.

[No Fly Zone]

After some thought, I think I agree with those suggesting that the only missing element is declaring emergency. And for the reasons cited. First, it alerts ATC that there IS a problem, one that they should prepare for - by rolling the equipment and other details. (Turns out that the equi. was needed...) Truly sad to says it, but the truth is, in today's flying environment a certain amount of CYA IS necessary. Declaring it an emergency provides that CYA for the crew as well as giving them many more options about where to fly, how and when to turn and whatever runway they deem best for their instant needs.
Otherwise, getting it back on the ground with no injuries and no (new) damage is kinda-mebbie-sorta all that matters. I'd call it a Good Day for all on EI110.:D

[victim]

Too much speculation here.

LE or TE Asym or Disagree would incur speed and fuel burn restrictions/penalties and preclude a crossing.

Further failure would likely lead to a 'land at nearest suitable'.

Wiser to be turning back to a major hub with all the toys than pitching off into the unknown with your fingers crossed.

Pax safety trumps commercial considerations.

Correct decision by the crew. Well managed. Safe outcome.

End of.

[ManaAdaSystem]

The decision to continue or return, to declare an emergency or not, rests with the captain.
He elected to return. Fine. Had he continued with only one hyd system u/s, that would have been ok too. Boeing does not say land at nearest airport with this failure. You are (correct me if I'm wrong) ok for ETOPS with two hyd systems.

Mayday? I don't know. If you declare emergency, you pretty much shut down the airport. We return for a multitude of reasons. If we all shout mayday every time "just in case" or to be able to "do what we want", it will have a big impact on everybody else.
Mayday have a definition. Why not use it to decide?
What is wrong with Pan?

[Duchess_Driver]

Thread drift:

@slowjet....:=

Tea and medals : sterling effort
Tea and biscuits : Good Job
Tea, no biscuits : regular line 'chat'
No tea and biscuits : poor show
Hats on : P45 /Locker clearing imminent