Jet Blue A320 loses two hydraulic systems
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Worldwide
Posts: 1,468
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So it seems, according to this link posted in the first page
Incident: Jetblue A320 at Las Vegas on Jun 17th 2012, two hydraulic systems failed
Quote:
"The Aviation Herald however learned on Jun 20th that the green hydraulic system had been lost followed by an overheat indication of the yellow hydraulic system prompting the crew to report the failure of two hydraulic systems. The crew actioned the relevant checklists and were able to recover the yellow hydraulic system."
Incident: Jetblue A320 at Las Vegas on Jun 17th 2012, two hydraulic systems failed
Quote:
"The Aviation Herald however learned on Jun 20th that the green hydraulic system had been lost followed by an overheat indication of the yellow hydraulic system prompting the crew to report the failure of two hydraulic systems. The crew actioned the relevant checklists and were able to recover the yellow hydraulic system."
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Spain
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is the audio from that flight: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvAHKyH_q_o
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Choroni, sometimes
Posts: 1,974
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
if they had yellow back, couldn't they use the ptu to power nosewheel steering through the green? assuming theyhad hydraulic fluid and just no pump on the green?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Surrounded by aluminum, and the great outdoors
Posts: 3,780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
green hydraulic system had been lost followed by an overheat indication of the yellow hydraulic system prompting the crew to report the failure of two hydraulic systems. The crew actioned the relevant checklists and were able to recover the yellow hydraulic system."
Makes perfectly good sense...
Makes perfectly good sense...
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MarkerInbound:
Yep. And the single engine approach and landing is no picnic in the 727 either. Loss of that second engine on departure mandates dumping ASAP.
As 7 Stroke says, there are a bunch of other reasons to consider dumping. Some flight control malfunctions have a speed additive, the 727 zero flap landing is ref +60. At that point even a landing under max landing weight is going to push tire speeds.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most of the time shutting down the second engine in the 727 after takeoff had just created a powered glider with an excellent glide ratio. 
If you started at ISA +10 and more than 250 KIAS you'd be able to level off at approx. 2500' if you weighed 160,000 lbs or less. ISA +15 required you to weigh less than approx. 150,000 lbs. iSA +20? 145,000 lbs.
In other words, on the majority of my takeoff's, if you shut the second engine down you were going down. CKA showed me that on my IOE. Never heard it mentioned before, or after, that.
Added the two engine out performance data to my 'trip' book and briefed the weight we needed to get to before the second engine shutdown was an automatic decision.
Page 44 -
Boeing 727 Performance Handbook
If you started at ISA +10 and more than 250 KIAS you'd be able to level off at approx. 2500' if you weighed 160,000 lbs or less. ISA +15 required you to weigh less than approx. 150,000 lbs. iSA +20? 145,000 lbs.
In other words, on the majority of my takeoff's, if you shut the second engine down you were going down. CKA showed me that on my IOE. Never heard it mentioned before, or after, that.
Added the two engine out performance data to my 'trip' book and briefed the weight we needed to get to before the second engine shutdown was an automatic decision.
Page 44 -
Boeing 727 Performance Handbook
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
so it seems we have a process unique to pilots and aviators...when something bad happens we talk about it, in the universe of the internet. We offer thoughts, opinions, monday morning quarterbacking if you will. But it is all part of the process.
At first we heard, from one of the pilot's own lips that they had lost TWO hydraulic systems and had OTHER problems. From this many could say rightly that they should land asap.
Oh, but now we have recovered one hydraulic system, so we have one normal and one emergency system.
flying at 12,000' MSL over an area where the elevation is above 2000'msl, means you are about 10,000' agl give or take. Add that it is the desert and the holding pattern is where the water meets the desert, you could get jostled a bit by turbulence.
OR you could have had the manual gear extension requiring yawing the plane to help get it down and locked.
OR you could have had control problems.
questions: how long did it take to get the yellow system up and running again? did it overheat on them again and again?
and my general statement. if they had gotten yellow back, and could have landed using overweight landing check and being careful about descent rate at touchdown...they should have landed earlier. Call it SAfety and comfort of passengers as a priority.
Overweight landings if done poorly can damage a plane. But if done properly may not even require an inspection.
Was the landing now almost 4 hours after takeoff that much safer? One must consider increased crew fatigue, passengers being frightened, performance of aircraft and other things in the equation.
wondering why they lost the first hyd system too.
also, please confirm if you can that having yellow would allow for use of flaps? even at reduced rate?
At first we heard, from one of the pilot's own lips that they had lost TWO hydraulic systems and had OTHER problems. From this many could say rightly that they should land asap.
Oh, but now we have recovered one hydraulic system, so we have one normal and one emergency system.
flying at 12,000' MSL over an area where the elevation is above 2000'msl, means you are about 10,000' agl give or take. Add that it is the desert and the holding pattern is where the water meets the desert, you could get jostled a bit by turbulence.
OR you could have had the manual gear extension requiring yawing the plane to help get it down and locked.
OR you could have had control problems.
questions: how long did it take to get the yellow system up and running again? did it overheat on them again and again?
and my general statement. if they had gotten yellow back, and could have landed using overweight landing check and being careful about descent rate at touchdown...they should have landed earlier. Call it SAfety and comfort of passengers as a priority.
Overweight landings if done poorly can damage a plane. But if done properly may not even require an inspection.
Was the landing now almost 4 hours after takeoff that much safer? One must consider increased crew fatigue, passengers being frightened, performance of aircraft and other things in the equation.
wondering why they lost the first hyd system too.
also, please confirm if you can that having yellow would allow for use of flaps? even at reduced rate?
I have no problem with their holding or whatever.
The only thing I can see is, when you have an emergency, FOR GOD'S SAKE DECLARE A BLOODY EMERGENCY!
It's best for ATC, saves radio time, costs nothing etc etc.
The only thing I can see is, when you have an emergency, FOR GOD'S SAKE DECLARE A BLOODY EMERGENCY!
It's best for ATC, saves radio time, costs nothing etc etc.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ma, my airline told us in a 727 you could not do a single engine flight unless clean and 210 knots. I asked my check airman when our check was complete if he would fail two engines at 500 ft and let's see if we can save it. He reluctantly did and failed two engines at flaps 15 V2 plus 15 and with a 100 ft descent per minute rate had a clean airplane and 210 knots at 350 feet. Many of our island airports have no terrain but lots of birds. Kind of nice to know you don't have to ditch it.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bubbers44:
Was this in the sim or the airplane? In the sim we were always at MGTOW for that scenerio.
I know first-hand from a airplane training session a very long time ago that a 707 can descend, make an IAP, and land on one inboard engine. But, Boeing didn't and doesn't doesn't go there. When I went through that one I concluded that the training captain had a screw loose.
my airline told us in a 727 you could not do a single engine flight unless clean and 210 knots. I asked my check airman when our check was complete if he would fail two engines at 500 ft and let's see if we can save it. He reluctantly did and failed two engines at flaps 15 V2 plus 15 and with a 100 ft descent per minute rate had a clean airplane and 210 knots at 350 feet. Many of our island airports have no terrain but lots of birds. Kind of nice to know you don't have to ditch it.
I know first-hand from a airplane training session a very long time ago that a 707 can descend, make an IAP, and land on one inboard engine. But, Boeing didn't and doesn't doesn't go there. When I went through that one I concluded that the training captain had a screw loose.
Last edited by aterpster; 23rd Jun 2012 at 14:14.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sim because the passengers always complained when we did it in a real airplane. Fed Ex could do it so why can't the sky nazis do it. We got bought by the sky nazis so don't blame me.
I liked my first airline better but like PSA we ended up where we ended up, not our choice. I like Key Largo a lot so it wasn't all bad. You just had to put up with the BS of corporate crap. That is why I always flew to TGU, I felt I was at Aircal again and the BS went away. Once you got out of MIA that is.
I liked my first airline better but like PSA we ended up where we ended up, not our choice. I like Key Largo a lot so it wasn't all bad. You just had to put up with the BS of corporate crap. That is why I always flew to TGU, I felt I was at Aircal again and the BS went away. Once you got out of MIA that is.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bubbers44:
When I rated in the 727 the sim was only approved for part of the training. The balance of the training and the rating ride was in the airplane. It's been a very long time but I think we did the 2-engine inop even in those old sims.
When we finally got the Level D sims or whatever then it was all in the sim.
Sim because the passengers always complained when we did it in a real airplane. Fed Ex could do it so why can't the sky nazis do it. We got bought by the sky nazis so don't blame me.
When we finally got the Level D sims or whatever then it was all in the sim.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We did the one engine approach in the 727 but it was always level at 210 knots. I requested the loss of two engines at 500 ft at V2 plus 15 because leaving the islands that was our most fulnerable time. It worked and I think the check airman was amazed we could fly not following our training program. I never blindly followed airline procedures. I did in the sim to pass but not in the real airplane to survive. Kind of sad isn't it?
3 hour hold?
i really cannot fathom this jet blue incident...a 3+ hour hold and then
a c/crew brief for a possible overrun and possible pax evac upon landing...
if after 3 hours they had not got themselves comfortable and sorted things out then i do not understand why they did not return asap as loss of 2 systems is a red land asap and declare mayday.
was there an immediate pan pan or a mayday? JB reports pilots did declare an emergency LATER with 2 hyd systems out. NTSB looking at whether to investigate the whole incident.
This report is very interesting; incident to Easyjet Airbus loss of 2 systems.
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...EZDM_08-09.pdf
And in this recent A321 incident Incident: Novair A321 at Gothenburg on Jun 22nd 2012, unsafe gear after departure
2 days ago to a NOVAIR a/c on t/off from GOT had an unsafe nose gear warning upon retraction and was back on the ground within 15 MINS...
A/C was flying from GOT to KOS island in Greece (well over 4 hours flying time) so the immediate return landing was overweight.
should they have burned off fuel if the gear could have collapsed or does this failure mean 'land asap'?
and this 737-800 crew was 160m out of MEL e/r to NZ when they had hyd problems, turned around and were back on the ground within 80 minutes.
Incident: Jetconnect B738 near Melbourne on Jun 17th 2012, hydraulic problem
i cannot see why JB did not get back on ground fairly pronto.
4000m runway at LAS.
a c/crew brief for a possible overrun and possible pax evac upon landing...
if after 3 hours they had not got themselves comfortable and sorted things out then i do not understand why they did not return asap as loss of 2 systems is a red land asap and declare mayday.
was there an immediate pan pan or a mayday? JB reports pilots did declare an emergency LATER with 2 hyd systems out. NTSB looking at whether to investigate the whole incident.
This report is very interesting; incident to Easyjet Airbus loss of 2 systems.
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...EZDM_08-09.pdf
And in this recent A321 incident Incident: Novair A321 at Gothenburg on Jun 22nd 2012, unsafe gear after departure
2 days ago to a NOVAIR a/c on t/off from GOT had an unsafe nose gear warning upon retraction and was back on the ground within 15 MINS...
A/C was flying from GOT to KOS island in Greece (well over 4 hours flying time) so the immediate return landing was overweight.
should they have burned off fuel if the gear could have collapsed or does this failure mean 'land asap'?
and this 737-800 crew was 160m out of MEL e/r to NZ when they had hyd problems, turned around and were back on the ground within 80 minutes.
Incident: Jetconnect B738 near Melbourne on Jun 17th 2012, hydraulic problem
i cannot see why JB did not get back on ground fairly pronto.
4000m runway at LAS.
Last edited by rog747; 24th Jun 2012 at 08:33. Reason: typo
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Age: 79
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let me put this in simple words for those who do not understand.
If one of the main hydraulic pumps fails there is an automatic valve which opens to supply both systems from the good pump.
This is intended to temporarily minimise the effect of a sudden failure, extended use can cause the good pump to overheat and raise an alarm. They carried out the correct action which is to disable the transfer valve and allow the good pump to cool down.
They did NOT have a double failure, they had a single failed system plus an overheat warning from the good system.
Just follow the actions in the QRH (Quick Reference Handbook) and all is well. This is a simple proceedure which they are trained to follow, no great drama just a routine failure of a single system.
Having followed the correct procedure they were left with a single failure and it was perfectly safe to stooge around for a while burning off enough fuel to ensure a safe landing below the maximum landing weight.
Job done, full marks.
If one of the main hydraulic pumps fails there is an automatic valve which opens to supply both systems from the good pump.
This is intended to temporarily minimise the effect of a sudden failure, extended use can cause the good pump to overheat and raise an alarm. They carried out the correct action which is to disable the transfer valve and allow the good pump to cool down.
They did NOT have a double failure, they had a single failed system plus an overheat warning from the good system.
Just follow the actions in the QRH (Quick Reference Handbook) and all is well. This is a simple proceedure which they are trained to follow, no great drama just a routine failure of a single system.
Having followed the correct procedure they were left with a single failure and it was perfectly safe to stooge around for a while burning off enough fuel to ensure a safe landing below the maximum landing weight.
Job done, full marks.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Middle Kingdom
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If one of the main hydraulic pumps fails there is an automatic valve which opens to supply both systems from the good pump.
This is intended to temporarily minimise the effect of a sudden failure, extended use can cause the good pump to overheat and raise an alarm. They carried out the correct action which is to disable the transfer valve and allow the good pump to cool down.
This is intended to temporarily minimise the effect of a sudden failure, extended use can cause the good pump to overheat and raise an alarm. They carried out the correct action which is to disable the transfer valve and allow the good pump to cool down.
Colocolo
Last edited by Colocolo; 24th Jun 2012 at 10:34.