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:: ?

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?

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

And the book tells you NOT to G/A, there is no cat to skin here.

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. :(

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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:
However, that's the Boeing "creed"; Airbus may have a different one...

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?

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.

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......

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