A320 SIM: SE ILS with subsequent engine fire below 1000'
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: turning inbound
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A320 SIM: SE ILS with subsequent engine fire below 1000'
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: turning inbound
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@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?
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?
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.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: UK
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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)
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)
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Kopavogur
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Having a margarita on the beach
Posts: 2,420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can't believe this is even a question.
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
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
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: England
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@noflynomore
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!
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.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Only half a speed-brake
FCTM again, careful before applying what you read! It is of limited scope:
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.
Originally Posted by FlightDetent
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.
Full points to CAAC for being knowledgable and asking to see the same.
Last edited by FlightDetent; 25th Jan 2017 at 20:19.
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Village of Santo Poco
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: turning inbound
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.