All Eng Fail and Eng Dual Failure with or wo Fuel

[Bibah320]

Hi Could anyone tell me why there are 2 different QRH procedure for dual eng failure on Airbus QRH?

How will decide to approach with flap 2 or flap 3

[vilas]

Hi Could anyone tell me why there are 2 different QRH procedure for dual eng failure on Airbus QRH?

How will decide to approach with flap 2 or flap3
There is only one procedure for dual engine fail where you are in G+Y hyd fail so can only get Flap2. The other is forced landing with engines like smoke, uncontained fire. There it says Flap/Slat max available. Forced landing field could be shorter so you would like as less approach speed as possible to reduce landing distance.

[compressor stall]

If you are looking at the eQRH, the one you access from the red button at the top I call the Hudson engine failure procedure. Low level immediate forced landing / ditching. You end up in Flap 2.

The expanded ABN PRO (ALL ENG or DUAL ENG depending on your mod status) is for more timely ECAM consideration (failure at higher level). Fuel or no fuel, these end up at Flap LVR 3 (slats only) with a Vapp 10kt slower.

As for flying the procedure, cross the CF for the runway (5nm) at 3000', already established in F3, Gear down, 160ish kts (depending on weight) works perfectly to the touchdown markers. (nil wind of course). Basically double the profile at 600'/nm. Easy to remember.

[vilas]

If you are looking at the eQRH, the one you access from the red button at the top I call the Hudson engine failure procedure. Low level immediate forced landing / ditching. You end up in Flap 2.

The expanded ABN PRO (ALL ENG or DUAL ENG depending on your mod status) is for more timely ECAM consideration (failure at higher level). Fuel or no fuel, these end up at Flap LVR 3 (slats only) with a Vapp 10kt slower.

As for flying the procedure, cross the CF for the runway (5nm) at 3000', already established in F3, Gear down, 160ish kts (depending on weight) works perfectly to the touchdown markers. (nil wind of course). Basically double the profile at 600'/nm. Easy to remember.
Hudson River didn't have dual engine flameout. The aircraft landed in normal law. Sully preferred Flap2 otherwise he could have landed in flap3 if he wanted. So Don't call that and mislead yourself. Fuel or no fuel is not the issue here. Whether Dual flameout or not is the issue. If it is dual flame out then you are in G+Y fail also. And only flaps2 is available because actual flaps are jammed at zero and slat 2 and 3 is same. It is Flap2 with no engine or maximum flap with one or both engine.

[compressor stall]

Hudson River didn't have dual engine flameout. The aircraft landed in normal law. Sully preferred Flap2 otherwise he could have landed in flap3 if he wanted. So Don't call that and mislead yourself.
I call it the Hudson checklist, not because he had a dual engine failure (which as you say he technically didn't) but that recommendation A-10-66 of the accident report recommended that manufacturers develop a checklist and procedure for a dual-engine failure occurring at a low altitude. Airbus developed the checklist in response to this IIRC.And its the big red button at the top of the eQRH and was on the 2nd last page page of the printed QRH. Hence my calling it the Hudson checklist.

It's a low level, I'm going to hit the ground / water soon and I don't really have time to troubleshoot checklist.

Fuel or no fuel is not the issue here. Whether Dual flameout or not is the issue.
For the higher altitude Dual Eng Fail, yes, Fuel or no fuel IS the issue. As you would know, the PRO ABN has two procedures. One for Fuel remaining and one for no Fuel Remaining. They are somewhat different (APU usage and relight phase) but are both different procedures to the EMER LANDING ALL ENG FAILURE abbreviated checklist - notably they both end up in Flap lever position 3 rather than Flap 2 which is the situation from the Hudson checklist. This I think is what the OP was trying to understand.

PS. For clarity I'm looking at A319, I assume the A320 Dual Eng failure ABN PRO is the same, I don't have an A320 QRH to hand.

[pineteam]

We have on the last page of our QRH a specific procedure for all engine failure ( Ditching and Forced landing) applicable in case of loss of thrust near the ground. It’s quite nice as it’s very short and only very few important items are written. Don’t know if it’s standard for all Airbus operators. If interested I can take a photo and share it.

[vilas]

ALL ENGINE FAIL is accessed through ABN ENGINE. It leads tofuel check. And It splits into four options. If relight can be attempted, cannot be attempted, then further two options ditching expected, Forced landing expected. If relight doesn't succeed then that also land up in same place forced landing/ditching and in both in the latest QRH I have says cofig 2 for both CEO or NEO. There is no config 3. Because it is useless. Unless your QRH is different. But if you enter into ABN MISCELLANEOUS, then select FORCED LANDING it will say Slats/Flaps..... Max Avail. It has nothing to do with Dual flameout.

[sonicbum]

Hi Could anyone tell me why there are 2 different QRH procedure for dual eng failure on Airbus QRH?

How will decide to approach with flap 2 or flap 3

FCTM is your friend :INTRODUCTION

The all engines failure is the situation where the aircraft entirely or partially loses engine thrust, and

is no longer able to maintain level flight.

The all engines failure can be identified by the Flight Warning Computer (FWC) or by the flight crew:

1. In most cases, the FWC detects an all engines failure condition and displays the ENG ALL

ENGINES FAILURE ECAM alert

2. In some cases, the FWC does not detect the all engines failure condition. In the case of partial

loss of thrust (no engine flame out) on one or more engines, the residual N2 may remain slightly

above the ENG 1(2) FAIL alert threshold.

Even if the ENG ALL ENGINES FAILURE alert is not triggered, the flight crew must rapidly decide

to apply either the ALL ENG FAIL QRH procedure, or the EMER LANDING QRH procedure,

depending on their assessment of the situation. If the flight crew considers there is sufficient time to

attempt an engine relight, they must apply the ALL ENG FAIL QRH procedure. However, if the flight

crew considers there is not sufficient time to attempt an engine relight, they must apply the EMER

LANDING QRH procedure. For more information, Refer to PR-AEP-MISC EMER LANDING.

[vilas]

Hi Could anyone tell me why there are 2 different QRH procedure for dual eng failure on Airbus QRH?
How will decide to approach with flap 2 or flap 3 Bibah320 has asked two simple questions. The first answer is in QRH ABN ENG section then click on ALL ENG FAIL. This procedure contains the two different procedures, Engine relight can be attempted or Engine relight cannot be attempted. If relight fails both procedures lead you to Forced landing procedure which is identical. In dual engine fail it is also Hydraulic G+Y fail. So there is simply no flap3, even if you selected only lever will go to three. But if dual engine failure occured at very low level then you may just have to forced land or ditch in that case don't follow All engine Fail ECAM or QRH but go to QRH miscellaneous and select Emer Landing All Eng Failure which straight away gives you only Ditching or Forced landing. This also stated Flap2. This is the second procedure perhaps you were asking. Miscellaneous also gives Forced Landing procedure. This has nothing to do with Dual engine fail but it is engine or engines available landing and flap are to be taken max available. It is possible to get confused. I hope this helps.

[nnc0]

In our QRH we have
1 ALL ENG FAIL
2 ENG DUAL FAILURE - FUEL REMAINING
3 ENG DUAL FAILURE _ NO FUEL REMAINING
4 EMER LANDING - ALL ENG FAILURE (inside Back cover)

Version 1 is actioned in response to the ENG ALL ENGINES FAILURE ecam alert that comes with FWC upgrade H2F8. It replaces versions 2 and 3 on those aircraft with H2F8 or higher installed.
Versions 2 and 3 are actioned following the ENG DUAL FAILURE ecam alert that comes with FWC upgrade H2F7 or earlier.
Version 4 applies to all aircraft if you're near the ground and have no hope of a relight.

[compressor stall]

And further to nnc0, on my fleet,

those aircraft that have ENG DUAL FAILURE - (NO) FUEL REMAINING procedures end up in Flap LVR position 3.
those that have the ENG ALL ENG FAIL procedure (and subsequently send you to the Fuel or No fuel route) end up in Flap LVR position 2.

The modification to the FWC was in 2016. Aircraft (and simulators!) that have not had the upgrade will show the ENG DUAL FAIL (NO) FUEL REMAINING failure ending in Flap Lever position 3. Post modification will show the ENG ALL ENG FAIL end in Flap Lever Position 2.

I double checked - the Vapp speeds pre and post mod for the same airframe show a 12kt difference for the same weight with flap lever 2 vs 3.

[vilas]

It is true that dual engine fail procedure has evolved over a time. In 2012, 2013 there was a lot of confusion about this procedure even in Toulouse and different SIM models like STD 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6. Airbus modified this in 2014. I dug out a 2014 version which came for MSN9761 and was available in SIM STD1.8C. In that the dual engine flame out approach is treated on the same lines as G+Y fail. In this dual hydraulic fail the flap lever is moved to 3 as a procedure without any actual flap movement. But this is not the latest procedure. Any way you can think for yourself when the actual surface doesn't move Vref cannot change. I am posting a screen shot below.

[vilas]

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1080x1920/screenshot_20200122_093659_9b2554faef8cf751e0d7ba217e1059cf6 88d2c95.png

[compressor stall]

But this is not the latest procedure.

It IS the current procedure on some MSNs that have yet to be upgraded. Check the date.
https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/553x829/screenshot_2020_01_22_16_12_39_da0ab51f82310d60b2483a06cb262 ed3e597a88f.png

Any way you can think for yourself when the actual surface doesn't move Vref cannot change.
I fully advocate thinking for yourself and thinking through what it's doing. However, you will notice that I have always stated Flap Lever Position 3 as opposed to Flap 3.
I didn't design the thing, I don't know everything about it. I never will.
There could be some other functions (that are not Flap related) that change through the selection of Flap Lever Position 3. Or maybe not.
In the heat of a Dual Engine failure, I'll stick to the script where there is one. My spare mental faculty can be used elsewhere.

[vilas]

Procedures will depend on MSN number, FWC number or even company. The procedure I gave comes from very recent MSNs which includes the Neos. Off course you should follow company procedure. I am giving the evolution.and logic of this procedure. And F 2or 3 without the necessary hydraulics doesn't change anything except the VFE which comes from the lever. I had discussed this(G+Y) 4years ago. I have a reply from Airbus that it doesn't change anything. I tried to answer OP with the logic of the procedure and how to locate it without getting lost. That is more important.

[pineteam]

we have in our QRH at the end a quick checklist for Ditching and one for Forced landing that we would use in case of loss of thrust near the ground.

For forced landing it’s as follow:

APU.......... START
FLAPS LEVER ......... 2
VAPP........ determine ( table with GW & VAPP)
SPLRS......... ARM

At 1000 feet AGL at the latest:

LANDING GEAR......... DOWN by GRVTY

At 500 fr AGL or below:

BRACE FOR IMPACT............ ORDER

For Flare:

TOUCH DOWN AT MIN V/S

At touchdown:

ALL ENG MASTERS.......... OFF
APU MASTER SW............. OFF
EMER EVAC PROC........... APPLY.

[compressor stall]

I tried to answer OP with the logic of the procedure and how to locate it without getting lost. That is more important.

Vilas, I understand and applaud your intention, as always you are willing to help in here and man people value your advice. But as the OP was asking what the go was with a Flap 3 landing vs Flap 2 landing, I inferred that s/he has an aircraft that does not have the FWC upgrade and thus calls for Flap 3 for the ENG DUAL Failure. A claim was made that F3 was not possible (or was from the Forced Landing procedure) and I wanted to correct the record that some MSNs still call for Flap Lever Position 3 for the Dual Engine Failure to the ground. In short s/he should follow the QRH...

For academic interest, I just found the Airbus FCOM changes summary:
"With the FWC standard H2F8, the ENG DUAL FAILURE procedure is renamed and updated. The philosophy of the enhanced ALL ENGINES FAILURE procedure is similar to the A350 procedure, but adapted to the Single Aisle technical particularities. This enhancement clarifies and simplifies the procedure, regardless of the altitude. In particular, it promotes the use of windmilling to relight the engines, compared to the starter-assisted relight that uses the APU bleed.
The “DITCHING” and “FORCED LANDING” paper procedures are revised to introduce the reference to the new abnormal “ALL ENGINES FAILURE” procedure. Actions associated to the Emergency Locator Transmitter (ELT) operation during the approach are also updated."

Add it to the list of A320 Family changes bought about by the introduction of the A350, and the pursuit of minimal changes for CCQs.

It's a good discussion and shows up intra fleet variations.

[vilas]

CS
That's good information. Yes! some procedures do get changed for commonality with other airbuses practices. Dual engine flameout procedures has been tinkered from 2012. That's why I was surprised that it is still at variance in 2020. No offense meant or taken.

[compressor stall]

None from my side either. :ok:

it’s an interesting technical discussion.

It’s got me scratching my head on a couple of things, I’ll post tomorrow.

[sonicbum]

Very interesting discussion, but as far as I understood the OP was talking about the EMERGENCY LANDING Vs the ALL ENG FAILURE / DUAL ENGINE FAILURE SCENARIOS, although the latter as You have nicely described have several differences also with respect to Flaps configuration.