Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Ground & Other Ops Forums > Questions
Reload this Page >

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

Questions If you are a professional pilot or your work involves professional aviation please use this forum for questions. Enthusiasts, please use the 'Spectators Balcony' forum.

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

Old 26th Jan 2017, 10:41
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Winchester
Posts: 5,486
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:: ?
wiggy is online now  
Old 26th Jan 2017, 11:41
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Middle England
Posts: 606
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?
763 jock is online now  
Old 26th Jan 2017, 12:18
  #23 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: turning inbound
Posts: 306
Originally Posted by sonicbum View Post
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 ), 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
reptile is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2017, 13:16
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,123
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?
Intruder is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2017, 13:42
  #25 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: turning inbound
Posts: 306
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.
reptile is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2017, 14:58
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Middle England
Posts: 606
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.
763 jock is online now  
Old 26th Jan 2017, 15:17
  #27 (permalink)  

Dog Tired
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 1,671
(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.
fantom is online now  
Old 26th Jan 2017, 20:04
  #28 (permalink)  

Only half a speed-brake
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Commuting home
Age: 42
Posts: 2,682
Originally Posted by reptile
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.

Originally Posted by 763 Jock
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.
FlightDetent is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2017, 21:08
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,509
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.
RAT 5 is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2017, 21:41
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Village of Santo Poco
Posts: 794
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.
Amadis of Gaul is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2017, 22:19
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 657
Reptile: are you suggesting that the CAAC examiners would like to see a go around then a shutdown on the one remaining engine................!
Meikleour is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2017, 12:16
  #32 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: turning inbound
Posts: 306
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.
reptile is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2017, 17:11
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Middle England
Posts: 606
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.
763 jock is online now  
Old 27th Jan 2017, 22:12
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 63
Posts: 0
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.
Piltdown Man is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2017, 04:46
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,123
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...

Last edited by Intruder; 28th Jan 2017 at 13:00.
Intruder is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2017, 08:34
  #36 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: turning inbound
Posts: 306
Originally Posted by Piltdown Man View Post
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?
reptile is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2017, 09:09
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,509
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.
RAT 5 is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2017, 16:53
  #38 (permalink)  

Dog Tired
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 1,671
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?
fantom is online now  
Old 29th Jan 2017, 06:15
  #39 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: turning inbound
Posts: 306
Originally Posted by fantom View Post
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......
reptile is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2017, 06:43
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: FL, USA
Posts: 2,418
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 and GTFO
B2N2 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.