A320 SIM: SE ILS with subsequent engine fire below 1000'

[reptile]

I am reviewing the CAAC ATP simulator profile, and it includes the following:

A single engine - other engine has been shut down after severe damage - ILS in low viz. An engine fire is then given below 1000' on the approach.

According to the FCTM (FAILURE AND ASSOCIATED ACTIONS): "Below 1000 ft (and down to AH in CAT3 DUAL), the occurrence of any failure implies a go-around and a reassessment of the system capability. Another approach may be undertaken according to the new system capability. It has been considered that below 1000 ft, not enough time is available for the crew to perform the necessary switching, to check system configuration and limitation and brief for minima."

The above, in my opinion, does not take into account the CAAC scenario. I would continue the approach, as there is no guarantee that the fire can be extinguished, and an uncontrolled engine fire during re-positioning and subsequent approach is a far more hazardous scenario than continuing and landing.

My reasoning may well be flawed, or I am overlooking something.

Any constructive input is welcomed.

[IAEdude]

Assuming you did your previous work on the SE ILS under LVO, and the WX isn't changed after your assesment I would rather continue to land instead of getting airbone again with N-1 plus a fire in the other hand.

Thats the real life. Under a SIM check, I would perform a go around and request inmediate return. In the briefing room we could talk about airmanship with the instructor/examinator.

[RAT 5]

Surely a sim ride is to give you experience as to what is best to do in real life, or for others to see what you would do in real life. As Dave Gunson alluded to; "the fire brigade would appreciate it if you could bring the fire to them on the ground. Their ladders are a bit short." An engine fire is not an engine failure. Much might depend on where you are. 1000' = 80 secs to landing; enough time to fire the bottles. Question is, can you maintain control of the a/c. I would hope so. If you are <500' = <45secs to landing perhaps not shutting down the engine is a consideration, but do that on touchdown. If you do a G/A with a fire will you use both engines, i.e. pour more fuel on the fire, or increase thrust on only the good engine? After the G/A at what point would you attack the fire? PDQ >400' I suspect. So it goes out, then what. You are on minimum fuel and the airfield is below limits for an SE landing. Oops.

Interesting that some consider this an airmanship issue - I do - and others write this under a type rating. This thought was also brought up about AB instructing to keep the centre pedestal clear. IMHO that too is airmanship. I wonder what other gems AB feel they need to instruct trained adults about. Are we really entering the world of "jet pilot for dummies?" I appreciate that is a little off topic and deserves its own thread.

[Amadis of Gaul]

Do whatever you're told in training, do what is necessary in real life.

[reptile]

@RAT 5: You are already on one engine. The fire is given on the only operating engine. Therefore, single engine runway limits and procedures have already been applied, as has the briefing for a SE landing.

The FCTM instructs that a go-around should be conducted to allow sufficient time for reviewing system status, confirm landing limits and briefing. Since that has already been done, I argue that it is safer to continue and land, rather than dragging a burning aircraft around for another approach.

This scenario is contained in a CAAC sim test profile. Ultimately, I suspect, it comes down to the specific culture in China. Do you blindly follow the books and explain what you would have done in real life during the debrief, or do you apply the proper airmanship by continuing the approach and getting the ship safely on the ground - and then argue your case during debrief?

[flyhardmo]

If I understand you correctly you have one engine shut down already and are on the ILS you when get an engine fire on the live engine. Are you suggesting going around, actioning the memory items, shuting down the only live engine over an airport that you can't see. I know CAAC take everything literally to the letter but a dual engine failure in Low Vis seems like a worse scenario to recover from and might actually be testing you on ignoring normal ops procedures in abnormal ops.

[Smokey Lomcevak]

I also would class this under airmanship. Has the landing capability changed? I would suggest not - you've already pushed the big red button which has disconnected the geny. That's why the a/c is now Cat 3 single. On the basis the failure happened below 1000ft, then one has proceeded beyond the approach ban point, so presumably the quoted RVR's were sufficient. Any subsequent reduction in RVR is advisory only.

The only things that have changed are that the amber land asap has turned red, and you've already fired one of your bottles - so you've only got one left - so arguably less chance of extinguishing the fire if you take it back into the air.

I also would also be wary of adapting one's behaviour for the sim. Whilst I would expect critical discussion of the decision, I would feel a lot more comfortable defending the decision to override a small section of the QRH In a situation that I believe is outside its scope, than I would taking a red land asap back into the air with marginal odds of improving the situation. There can never be a paragraph, section or procedure for every eventuality or combination of failures.

It's got me thinking though - a more difficult decision, I think, would be about what to do if the required visual references were not achieved at the revised DH, with the fire still burning. What if we'd already fired the remaining bottle? For cat 3 single, this decision has to take place at 50ft above the ground.

Or alternatively - master warning CRC sounds at 1200ft. Latest quoted RVR's preclude cat 3 single approach. Fire still burning at 1000ft, the approach ban point. Continue or G/A? I can see it argued both ways... but I don't think the answer would be in the QRH...

Edit: sorry reptile - crossed posts. If it's on the live engine. then you really are in the poo - any thrust is good thrust. Hopefully it's enough to get you to the general vicinity of the runway.

[noflynomore]

Reptile, I agree entirely with your analysis. The FCTM is remarking on failures to a serviceable aircraft, not one already on a single engine.

If a fire below 1000ft is going to compromise a safe landing you'll stand no chance whatsoever if you launch into another circuit, if it won't compromise a safe landing then that is what you'll get, and the fire service won't need those 500ft ladder extensions.

In any case, as flyhardmo says, what are you going to do with the burning engine? The only part of the fire drill you can do is to fire the fire bottles - you can hardly shut it down. (indeed, in a g/a you are asking the burning and presumably damaged engine for TOGA thrust - hardly a sensible thing to do under the circumstances).

The scenario itself is farcical. This is double jeopardy and is not a realistic or practical exercise with any training value and its inclusion an assessment or check tells one a great deal about the mindset of the airline involved. In the case of double jeopardy you may have to extemporise. I'd fire both bottles into the burning engine, make a radio call and land and stop as quickly as possible with almost certainly an evacuation on the runway. If you've already had an engine shutdown and then get a fire on the other one the "instructor" is likely to throw a meteorite strike or earthquake at you on the runway for good measure. I'd get out and run away as fast as I could! (from CAAC as well)

[Icelanta]

My GOD, so much blablabla...

Your situation is as follows: you are COMMITED to land. Plain and simple.
Your only engine available is on fire. As a result you are NOT able to perform the Ecam action or memory items that include shutting down and securing the engine. You can only do this on the ground, hence land ASAP. CAAC sim check, real-life does not matter.

Personal opinion: Any Captain even thinking of going around in such a situation should have his licence revoked.:rolleyes::ugh:

[fantom]

So you have only one engine and it's on fire. Going around? Are you mad?

It starts with 'air' and ends in 'manship'.

[sonicbum]

I am reviewing the CAAC ATP simulator profile, and it includes the following:

A single engine - other engine has been shut down after severe damage - ILS in low viz. An engine fire is then given below 1000' on the approach.

According to the FCTM (FAILURE AND ASSOCIATED ACTIONS): "Below 1000 ft (and down to AH in CAT3 DUAL), the occurrence of any failure implies a go-around and a reassessment of the system capability. Another approach may be undertaken according to the new system capability. It has been considered that below 1000 ft, not enough time is available for the crew to perform the necessary switching, to check system configuration and limitation and brief for minima."

The above, in my opinion, does not take into account the CAAC scenario. I would continue the approach, as there is no guarantee that the fire can be extinguished, and an uncontrolled engine fire during re-positioning and subsequent approach is a far more hazardous scenario than continuing and landing.

My reasoning may well be flawed, or I am overlooking something.

Any constructive input is welcomed.

Hi,

Is an engine fire one of the 5 reasons (+1 autoland light) to go around below 1000 ft ? No
Problem solved.
By the way you wouldn't go around even with 4 engines working.

[Check Airman]

Can't believe this is even a question.:ugh:

I had a similar situation a few checkides ago. Normal ILS with both engines running, and an engine fire somewhere between 500 and 1000ft (can't remember). Silence the warning, declare an emergency and land.

Then there was the CRM scenario where on final, the FA calls and says there's smoke in the cabin- one (albeit new) guy said he'd go around and hold to investigate :eek:

[CHfour]

@noflynomore
The scenario itself is farcical. This is double jeopardy and is not a realistic or practical exercise with any training value and its inclusion an assessment or check tells one a great deal about the mindset of the airline involved.
There could be some method in their madness though with this scenario. It's a good test of airmanship as, if you elect to go around, you obviously don't have any!

[RAT 5]

Sorry guys FTFQ!!!! Reptile, I apologise. IMHO there is no choice. Flying a circuit as a glider??

The scenario itself is farcical and its inclusion an assessment or check tells one a great deal about the mindset of the airline involved.

Not so fast Moriati.

There could be some method in their madness though with this scenario. It's a good test of airmanship as, if you elect to go around, you obviously don't have any!


Sounds possible, but are they that smart?? Others with more cultural knowledge will have to answer, but if it is a test to separate the thinkers & the do'ers it's an option.

[FlightDetent]

FCTM again, careful before applying what you read! It is of limited scope:You'll run into discrepancies like this with FCTM which evolved from a book aptly named Instructor Support. For instance it reads that for predictive WINDSHEAR AHEAD - GO AROUND you should immediately commence the manouevre, wheras FCOM-ABN explains how to ignore spurious warnings.

Kindly be aware that as per Airbus FCOM, for LVP (exactly the scenario here), red warnings are NOT a go-around item below 1000' if capability is not degraded. My understanding is that red = critical and thus you land ASAP, which echoes the sentiments expressed above. Rarely does airmanship go against the books if you read them thorougly enough.

Full points to CAAC for being knowledgable and asking to see the same.

[FlightDetent]

Pro-nor-srp-01-70 failures and associated actions below 1 000 ft during a cat ii approach
1669

[Amadis of Gaul]

Even if the capability IS degraded, might still be better off landing the silly thing. I mean, if you're going to crash anyway, might as well crash at the airport, they have many big, nice, fast fire trucks.

[763 jock]

I'm almost lost for words. Get the bloody thing on the ground.

:ugh:

[AerocatS2A]

Reptile, are you absolutely sure the fire is on the good engine?

[reptile]

Absolutely.

Point 8 on the form states: One engine severely damaged. RA1+2 Fault. Return to land ILS in low visibility.

Point 9: Engine fire on live engine below 1000 ft

I suppose what I am really looking for is input from someone with experience of CAAC sim tests. For me it is an absolute no brainer - land the aircraft. However, I am also under the impression that Chinese airlines - and CAAC - blindly follow the books, often at the expense of common sense.

[wiggy]

Wouldn't even a Chines OM have a clause along the lines of:

" In dire circumstances and in order to achieve safe completion of the flight and safety of the passengers and crew the captain can use his initative and overide/modify" ......etc etc:: ?

[763 jock]

I'd roll it on its back and walk out of the sim. What a total waste of time. You've lost one engine and you then go into direct law when the gear is lowered on approach. Just after that, the good engine catches fire. Are you sure you want to work for this comedy outfit?

[reptile]

Hi,

Is an engine fire one of the 5 reasons (+1 autoland light) to go around below 1000 ft ? No
Problem solved.

Specifically in this CAAC test scenario, I believe yours is the best answer.

The question has never been about the airmanship involved (a great 'thank you' you those who've contributed with sarcastic comments regarding lack of common sense and airmanship - greatly helpful :ugh:), but rather the Chinese manner of strictly following the book, even under extreme circumstances.

Your solution requires no expansive explanations in an environment where the language barrier is already an issue. Hopefully quoting FCTM NO-180 does the trick.

Thank you for the input

[Intruder]

Much might depend on where you are. 1000' = 80 secs to landing; enough time to fire the bottles.
Can you fire the bottles in an A320 without pulling the handle - which will (I assume, I haven't flown it) close the fuel valve?

[reptile]

No, the ENG FIRE pb (equavalent to T-Handle) must be pushed to release in order to arm the squibs. This action also performs all the other functions normally associated with pulling the handle - shutting off fuel, hydraulics, FADEC, etc, etc.

[763 jock]

You cannot fight the fire. Pushing the red button will shut the engine down. When you lower the gear, the thing goes straight into direct law with both RA's failed. I also seem to recall that the APP cannot be armed with both RA's u/s, so an auto land is not an option.

Your best option might be an approach in LOC/FPA. Follow the glide to the runway and leave the gear up. Anyone tried an LVP approach in direct law with an engine out?

There are plenty of examples in history of accidents resulting from a delay in getting a fire on the ground.

[fantom]

(a great 'thank you' you those who've contributed with sarcastic comments regarding lack of common sense and airmanship - greatly helpful

If that comment was directed at me, or others who replied in like fashion, you are being disingenuous. There was no sarcasm.

I answered honestly and, believe me, I know a great deal about 320 sim rides.

As a CRMI. I suggest you consider your attitude to help before some-one has to endure your company on a long-haul flight.

[FlightDetent]

However, I am also under the impression that Chinese airlines - and CAAC - blindly follow the books, often at the expense of common sense. And the book tells you NOT to G/A, there is no cat to skin here.

You've lost one engine and you then go into direct law when the gear is lowered on approach. Just after that, the good engine catches fire. Are you sure you want to work for this comedy outfit? From the other side, would you pass a pilot who attempts to G/A or, even worse, pushes the fire button?

Logic, survival instinct and the book tells you to land, all nicely aligned. The little catch is the displayed ECAM asking you to shutdown the only remaining engine. To me this looks like a nice* scenario to verify the applicant can maintain basic airmanship in the face of red writings on the ECAM, seeing through it and not think like a monkey

*=Indeed, if this is a LVP in a conventional sense then dual RA fault makes it a freak show. :(

[RAT 5]

The question has never been about the airmanship involved but rather the Chinese manner of strictly following the book, even under extreme circumstances.

I'm not quite sure what Reptile's take is on all this and his own opinion. I apologise if I have this wrong; but would you want to work for a company that would expect you to do anything else but land the beast.

[Amadis of Gaul]

If they pay enough, sure. Not like I would actually go around if presented with a situation like that, expectations be damned eleven times over.

[Meikleour]

Reptile: are you suggesting that the CAAC examiners would like to see a go around then a shutdown on the one remaining engine................!

[reptile]

I am not suggesting anything. I'm posing a question, hoping for someone with experience of Chinese airlines, and more specifically CAAC check rides, to give feedback.

[763 jock]

This is not a check ride. This scenario should be treated with the contempt it deserves. A total joke.

You have a fire that you cannot attempt to put out until you are on the ground. And there's your answer. It's the same in any language.

[Piltdown Man]

I think this is a scenario that has been devised backwards. A slimy git in the training department has worked out how to trap everyone. A go-around is ridiculous but a landing is against the creed of the FCOM. But you have to remember that this manual was never written with this scenario in mind. Therefore RAT5, 763 jock etc. are correct. With this specific failure you have to land. If matey boy in the back objects, explain.

[Intruder]

Part of the "creed of the FCOM" is that not all situations are considered, and that compound emergencies are not addressed. Unless there is a specific procedure for "Fire on single operative engine", the 'Captain must use best judgement' clause takes precedence:
The flight crew must be aware that checklists cannot be created for all conceivable situations and are not intended to replace good judgment. In some situations, at the captain’s discretion, deviation from a checklist may be needed.
However, that's the Boeing "creed"; Airbus may have a different one...

[reptile]

I think this is a scenario that has been devised backwards. A slimy git in the training department has worked out how to trap everyone. A go-around is ridiculous but a landing is against the creed of the FCOM.

This perfectly sums up the situation, as I see it. From the word go, I've said that landing is the only way to go. Hence the question posed to those with experience in China; what carries more weight over there? Common sense or the creed of the FCOM?

[RAT 5]

A go-around is ridiculous but a landing is against the creed of the FCOM.

Throughout my career there has always been 1 governing SOP. "A crew may divert from SOP's where flight safety dictates other actions."

This would seem such a scenario and should be used in any disagreement.

[fantom]

You have many opinions here, mostly useful. One thing: if you do join this outfit, the problem will probably not be going away. Do you want to live with that every six months?

[reptile]

You have many opinions here, mostly useful. One thing: if you do join this outfit, the problem will probably not be going away. Do you want to live with that every six months?
You are spot on!

However, bills to pay......

[B2N2]

With a fire on the remaining engine you do NOT go around.
I have no Law degree in Airbusiness but this may be a "systems" gotcha setup.
Blindly pulling or pushing the fire button will turn you into a glider.
Any other indications of a fire? False indication?
Land the :mad: and GTFO

[FlightDetent]

Common sense or the creed of the FCOM?

Sorry for shouting: THE FCOM TELLS YOU TO LAND THE THING!! Do you have problems understanding that sentence? An honest question.

[763 jock]

A much more valid exercise would be a fire warning on one engine during a normal LVP approach. Go around or continue and land? I know what I would do. I suspect the Chinese and I would have a fairly short discussion in the de-brief.

[FlightDetent]

What do you expect the Chinese stance to be, in your valid scenario?

[763 jock]

Probably the complete opposite to mine. Which would be to continue the approach and land if all other parameters are satisfactory.

[FlightDetent]

Why would they think not the same as you? Actually, what makes you believe they might think any different?

[Right Way Up]

Point 8 on the form states: One engine severely damaged. RA1+2 Fault. Return to land ILS in low visibility.

Point 9: Engine fire on live engine below 1000 ft

No wonder I keep receiving these ridiculously lucrative looking employment opportunities in China.