Jet Blue A320 loses two hydraulic systems
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Surrounded by aluminum, and the great outdoors
Posts: 3,780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No hydraulics=landing w thrust maneuvering only, seems to be the case from DC-10 onward
Last edited by ironbutt57; 20th Jun 2012 at 16:09.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: HKG
Age: 47
Posts: 1,007
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A330-300s also do not have fuel dumping. MTOW 233T MLW187T. You can land up to MTOW after performing the overweight landing checklist.
If engine out and heavy, or even with both engines running it may be required to start APU to supply packs or switch off packs for Go-around performance, combined with a flap 3 approach.
I assume it will be something similar with the 320.
If engine out and heavy, or even with both engines running it may be required to start APU to supply packs or switch off packs for Go-around performance, combined with a flap 3 approach.
I assume it will be something similar with the 320.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A330-300s also do not have fuel dumping.
Anyway, I don't know for the 320, but for a 330 at MTOW with the most critical dual hyd fail, the actual landing distance for LAS is close to 13000 feet.
I knew the 105% was in the books at one time, but it looks like it has been changed to (at least in the US):
§ 25.1001 Fuel jettisoning system.
(a) A fuel jettisoning system must be installed on each airplane unless it is shown that the airplane meets the climb requirements of §§25.119 and 25.121(d) at maximum takeoff weight, less the actual or computed weight of fuel necessary for a 15-minute flight comprised of a takeoff, go-around, and landing at the airport of departure with the airplane configuration, speed, power, and thrust the same as that used in meeting the applicable takeoff, approach, and landing climb performance requirements of this part.
I have tried the no hyd landing in the A320 simulator, sporty at least IRC
§ 25.1001 Fuel jettisoning system.
(a) A fuel jettisoning system must be installed on each airplane unless it is shown that the airplane meets the climb requirements of §§25.119 and 25.121(d) at maximum takeoff weight, less the actual or computed weight of fuel necessary for a 15-minute flight comprised of a takeoff, go-around, and landing at the airport of departure with the airplane configuration, speed, power, and thrust the same as that used in meeting the applicable takeoff, approach, and landing climb performance requirements of this part.
I have tried the no hyd landing in the A320 simulator, sporty at least IRC
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Las Vegas is a bit more than 2000' above mean sea level and it is a hot area...however it has very long runway(s) and a competent CFR team.
IF the plane was truly in a unique controlability situation, edwards air force base and its 11 mile long dry lake runway is not that far away...with desert in between.
I cannot think of a good reason to fly for 3 hours before landing...somethng else could have gone wrong during that time compromising the plane. While some would say landing with brake accumulators only would make things a bit more difficult, or even the overweight landing inspection possible, it still doesn't make sense to sstay up that long with two hydraulic systems out.
someone mentioned the plane lurched due to loss of the yaw damper...I have a feeling that the plane was at relatively low altitudes and the yaw damper shouldn't have been part of that equation...
IF the plane was truly in a unique controlability situation, edwards air force base and its 11 mile long dry lake runway is not that far away...with desert in between.
I cannot think of a good reason to fly for 3 hours before landing...somethng else could have gone wrong during that time compromising the plane. While some would say landing with brake accumulators only would make things a bit more difficult, or even the overweight landing inspection possible, it still doesn't make sense to sstay up that long with two hydraulic systems out.
someone mentioned the plane lurched due to loss of the yaw damper...I have a feeling that the plane was at relatively low altitudes and the yaw damper shouldn't have been part of that equation...
Join Date: May 2005
Location: On a good day - at sea
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Taxiing around LAS in an A320 is pretty hard on the brake temps Especially if the aircraft was coming of a quick turn. It's not uncommon at all to get the BRAKES HOT ECAM after leaving the gate and having to delay takeoff.
So the airplane could easily have had pretty hot brakes before take off and then suffered the G and Y failure. With only ACCUMULATOR pressure available for manual braking of an overweight aircraft, I'd want to be pretty certain those brakes were up to the job. If he didn't leave the gear down after liftoff, The Ground Brake Cooling Table indicates 3 hrs is not an unreasonable cooling period.
So the airplane could easily have had pretty hot brakes before take off and then suffered the G and Y failure. With only ACCUMULATOR pressure available for manual braking of an overweight aircraft, I'd want to be pretty certain those brakes were up to the job. If he didn't leave the gear down after liftoff, The Ground Brake Cooling Table indicates 3 hrs is not an unreasonable cooling period.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know why they screwed around for 3 hours burning fuel.
It is because, given their first hand knowledge of the entire situation and the condition of the airplane, in their professional judgement it was the best course of action.
Sorry to disappoint.
Think of all the lives that would have been saved if they had a link to PPRuNe that would have enabled them to solicit advice.
It is because, given their first hand knowledge of the entire situation and the condition of the airplane, in their professional judgement it was the best course of action.
Sorry to disappoint.
Think of all the lives that would have been saved if they had a link to PPRuNe that would have enabled them to solicit advice.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
first, did the crew leave the landing gear down after takeoff or shortly thereafter to cool the brakes in response to ecam message?
second, a ground cooling chart is a bit different circumstance than flying around cooling the brakes by leaving the gear extended.
was it a quick turn? should jetblue discontinue quick turns at Las Vegas?
I've seen nothing so far regarding the brakes, except potential problems due to loss of hydraulics.
AS to the notion mentioned by bobnspike. If that's the case, perhaps we should shut down pprune. After all, pilots never make mistakes, right?
Is it possible that the crew was talking to jetblue dispatch/mx? And encouraged to try to ''fix'' things and then continue on to New York to save money? You know, sort of like Alaska talking to the crew that lost the MD83 to the trim problem?
No, pilots never make mistakes, they never have their company's economic interests at heart.
second, a ground cooling chart is a bit different circumstance than flying around cooling the brakes by leaving the gear extended.
was it a quick turn? should jetblue discontinue quick turns at Las Vegas?
I've seen nothing so far regarding the brakes, except potential problems due to loss of hydraulics.
AS to the notion mentioned by bobnspike. If that's the case, perhaps we should shut down pprune. After all, pilots never make mistakes, right?
Is it possible that the crew was talking to jetblue dispatch/mx? And encouraged to try to ''fix'' things and then continue on to New York to save money? You know, sort of like Alaska talking to the crew that lost the MD83 to the trim problem?
No, pilots never make mistakes, they never have their company's economic interests at heart.
Thanks Matey.
I now have another qustion for the Chaps landing a 320 manually.
How? Diff thrust? Or does "manual" mean that some hydraulic power remains? Manual reversion is not possible on the 320 I thought.
I now have another qustion for the Chaps landing a 320 manually.
How? Diff thrust? Or does "manual" mean that some hydraulic power remains? Manual reversion is not possible on the 320 I thought.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unlikely they had a hot brake problem at a major airport like LAS. They probably extended the gear to help burn fuel off as I did once at TGU to land south at proper weight. Hot brakes were our concern at Fresno with shorter runways and 10 minute turns. If they lost the yellow and green hydraulic systems they would have landed hot with no flaps, only slats with the blue system seeing the chart.
No reverse and accumulator brakes so one application. No yaw dampers but at that low of an altitude who cares? What was with all the yawing? Was something else out too? Did the pilots do it? The throwing up of many passengers makes me think there was another problem. Rudder control was not proper, why? Surging engines could do this with no yaw damper.
We are waiting for more info.
No reverse and accumulator brakes so one application. No yaw dampers but at that low of an altitude who cares? What was with all the yawing? Was something else out too? Did the pilots do it? The throwing up of many passengers makes me think there was another problem. Rudder control was not proper, why? Surging engines could do this with no yaw damper.
We are waiting for more info.
Boeing had a good article in their Aero magazine a few years ago and said if you took off from a runway and met all the performance limits you can land on that runway and meet all the performance requirements.
Think about it, you were able to accelerate to V1, lose an engine and meet the 2nd stage requirements. During an engine out go around you're already ~V2 at the end of the runway and a couple hundred feet above the airport.
the big thing is if you takeoff , lose an engine and have to return for landing...if your weight is too much to allow a safe go around on remaining engines, then you have a problem...and that problem is dealt with by dumping fuel.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MI, I have always thought the same thing, if you were legal to lose an engine at V1 and continue you don't need to check the charts to see if on a go around at the beginning of the runway you would have to recalculate. It is a no brainer. Yes, you can return and land at your departure airport with no calculations. If you had to divert to Denver, yes, recalculate go around performance.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: On a good day - at sea
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know why they screwed around for 3 hours burning fuel.
It is because, given their first hand knowledge of the entire situation and the condition of the airplane, in their professional judgement it was the best course of action.
Sorry to disappoint.
Think of all the lives that would have been saved if they had a link to PPRuNe that would have enabled them to solicit advice.
It is because, given their first hand knowledge of the entire situation and the condition of the airplane, in their professional judgement it was the best course of action.
Sorry to disappoint.
Think of all the lives that would have been saved if they had a link to PPRuNe that would have enabled them to solicit advice.
Somebody below said hot brakes aren't an issue at Vegas. Well maybe not for some but we don''t have brake fans installed on our 320s and we have tight turnarounds and we regularly take delays waiting for the things to cool down. Check your brake temps next time you have a long downhill taxi there. In an A320 the HOT BRAKES ECAM triggers at 300 deg C and once it does you can't takeoff. ( No fire extinguishing in the gear well)
Last edited by nnc0; 21st Jun 2012 at 02:35.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Glorious West Sussex
Age: 76
Posts: 1,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is a possible explanation for the 3-hour hold...
Green HYD fails, inducing Yellow HYD overheat as well (thanks, Dg800). Crew depressurise both systems per ECAM, enter convenient hold to plan for immediate landing at LAS on Blue system only.
LDR approx 10,700' from the QRH, longest runway 14,510' so no problem there.
Y HYD cools down, allowing pump to go back on during approach preparation. Crew elect to hold for a short time and see if Y HYD overheats again - it does not so they burn off to MLW and land.
Green HYD fails, inducing Yellow HYD overheat as well (thanks, Dg800). Crew depressurise both systems per ECAM, enter convenient hold to plan for immediate landing at LAS on Blue system only.
LDR approx 10,700' from the QRH, longest runway 14,510' so no problem there.
Y HYD cools down, allowing pump to go back on during approach preparation. Crew elect to hold for a short time and see if Y HYD overheats again - it does not so they burn off to MLW and land.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Choroni, sometimes
Posts: 1,974
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I now have another qustion for the Chaps landing a 320 manually.
How? Diff thrust? Or does "manual" mean that some hydraulic power remains? Manual reversion is not possible on the 320 I thought.
How? Diff thrust? Or does "manual" mean that some hydraulic power remains? Manual reversion is not possible on the 320 I thought.
The correct term is MECHANICAL BACKUP (not manual backup, I'm sorry).
It is only for temporarily use, if all 5 flight control computers gave up and a reset is necessary. With MB the aircraft is controlled via pitch trim (manual) and rudder (cable). Both need hyd pressure. MB is not designed for landing, but it has been demonstrated that it can be done.
nnc0:--
The 300c limit on the Airbus brakes before takeoff is because the Airbus has no Wheel Wheel Fire detection system. It has nothing to do with the performance of the Brakes when they get warm.
Ok
Oh and that is a "ground cooling table"
If that table says 3 hrs on the ground then it would be 10 mins in the air!!
So, not applicable in the air with a 200 kts breeze!!
The 300c limit on the Airbus brakes before takeoff is because the Airbus has no Wheel Wheel Fire detection system. It has nothing to do with the performance of the Brakes when they get warm.
Ok
Oh and that is a "ground cooling table"
If that table says 3 hrs on the ground then it would be 10 mins in the air!!
So, not applicable in the air with a 200 kts breeze!!
Last edited by nitpicker330; 21st Jun 2012 at 09:14.
What was the rush? Saving a few dollars?
Nobody is saying they should have rushed - you shouldn't, working through the ECAM, QRH summary and all the other associated drills resulting from it (gravity gear extension, briefing what might be a very non-standard go-around etc) is a long and complex procedure - but a red LAND ASAP is not to be taken with a pinch of salt. You can't blame people for questioning why it took them a few hours to get down.
Airbus test pilots might have landed in mechanical backup, but would your average line pilot be able to do it, perhaps never having seen it before even in the sim? I'd hazard a guess at probably not.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: South of Watford
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Saint Ex. As a TRE on the 320 for many years it is a common misconception among even experienced Airbus pilots that the manual reversion is akin to that on the Boeing with a limited mechanical linkage to some of the flying controls. In the Airbus there is no such linkage. It may well be that some have landed in the sim with all hydraulic systems out. In my experience having performed this manouvre and observed it in the sim the success rate for a non catastrophic landing is around 5% in good weather. This obviously increases with practise. However, with limited "free play" sim time after completing all of the required items and the other "nice to practise" scenarios that most of us have, in my opinion, the average crew chance of a successful outcome will be very low. In the real world faced with a triple failure and having exhausted all other avenues to recover at least one system then clearly you would give it your best shot but this is very much the last resort option in the hope that you get the hull on the airport where the emergency services are and some will walk/stagger away. This was the reason for my earlier summary but I and most that I meet are just average operators so I still stand by my original post.