Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Jet Blue A320 loses two hydraulic systems

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Jet Blue A320 loses two hydraulic systems

Old 20th Jun 2012, 11:36
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: PDX
Posts: 70
JetBlue A320 loses two hydraulic systems

[Not a pilot] Here is a non-technical account of a JetBlue emergency flight [added: on the afternoon of 17 June]. Another source identifies the plane as flight B6-194, Las Vegas to JFK, New York with 155 people on board. The same source gives the registration number: N552JB.

Panic grips New York-bound JetBlue flight when hydraulic system fails over Las Vegas - NYPOST.com

Last edited by fotoguzzi; 20th Jun 2012 at 12:54. Reason: Add date of incident; make airline one word
fotoguzzi is offline  
Old 20th Jun 2012, 11:56
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Milano
Age: 50
Posts: 461
Kudos to the reporter for getting it right at least this once regarding the burning off vs. actual dumping of excess fuel.

Dg800 is offline  
Old 20th Jun 2012, 12:01
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: South of Watford
Posts: 891
Nice to see that these experts can manually land an Airbus when all the hydraulic systems fail. Perhaps they could teach us pilots how to do that - there is very limited manual reversion on the Airbus unlike the Boeing. The Airbus manual reversion allows you to maintain straight and level to reset one or more flight control computers. Airbus=total hydraulic failure=toast.
pitotheat is offline  
Old 20th Jun 2012, 12:10
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Europe
Posts: 7
Good Point!!
So why did these guys hold for 3 hours when they had lost 2 out of 3 systems and were 1 failure away from being toast.
Don't tell me it was 'cos they didn't want to risk an overweight landing. Please!

Last edited by 737superace; 20th Jun 2012 at 12:17.
737superace is offline  
Old 20th Jun 2012, 12:15
  #5 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: PDX
Posts: 70
Another technical site has some cogent comments on the options available to the pilots. I do not know if PPRuNe.org wishes to link to possible competitors.
fotoguzzi is offline  
Old 20th Jun 2012, 12:23
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Age: 55
Posts: 2,919
- there is very limited manual reversion on the Airbus unlike the Boeing. The Airbus manual reversion allows you to maintain straight and level to reset one or more flight control computers. Airbus=total hydraulic failure=toast.
At the risk of turning this into a Boeing V Airbus bun fight, again. Please could someone explain what manual reversion there is in a modern Boeing compared to an Airbus In the event of a total hydraulic failure.


I'm not familiar with the B737NG. Is the manual reversion the same as the classic?

AFAIK all large modern jet transport require hydraulics for the flt controls to function. Barring the 737 perhaps.
TURIN is offline  
Old 20th Jun 2012, 12:41
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: EDDM
Posts: 106
Nice to see that these experts can manually land an Airbus when all the hydraulic systems fail.
Where do you read that 'all' hydraulic systems failed?
oliver2002 is offline  
Old 20th Jun 2012, 12:51
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: EGSS
Posts: 919
I was once told there were three physical cable-and-pulley type cables in the aircraft.
1. Rudder (back up input to hyd control)
2. Alt Gear extension.
3. Toilet dump (!)

Perhaps someone can confirm
Flightmech is offline  
Old 20th Jun 2012, 13:19
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,011
Here's the link to Avherald, which is probably the next best thing to the NTSB report, and absent the usual media rubbish.

Incident: Jetblue A320 at Las Vegas on Jun 17th 2012, two hydraulic systems failed
Incident: Jetblue A320 at Las Vegas on Jun 17th 2012, two hydraulic systems failed

By Simon Hradecky, created Tuesday, Jun 19th 2012 16:52Z, last updated Tuesday, Jun 19th 2012 16:52Z

A Jetblue Airbus A320-200, registration N552JB performing flight B6-194 from Las Vegas,NV to New York JFK,NY (USA) with 155 people on board, was climbing out of Las Vegas' runway 25R when the crew levelled off at 13,000 feet reporting multiple hydraulic problems, a few minutes later the crew declared emergency reporting they had lost two hydraulic systems. They needed to burn off fuel and entered a holding at 12,000 feet for about 3 hours and landed safely on runway 25R about 3:30 hours after departure and stopped on the runway.

The runway was closed for about 30 minutes until the aircraft was towed off the runway.

A replacement Airbus A320-200 reached New York with a delay of 8 hours.

FlightAware > JetBlue Airways (B6) #194 > 17-Jun-2012 > KLAS-KJFK Flight Tracker
I'm also wondering about the decision to hold for 3 hours when down to one hydraulic system. The only thing I can think of is that they considered stopping ability, and decided it was more prudent to make a later landing at a lower weight than a quick landing at a heavy weight.

Too soon to pass judgment at this stage anyway. In the interim, it appears that the crew did a good job of getting everybody back safely.

Last edited by Check Airman; 20th Jun 2012 at 13:22.
Check Airman is online now  
Old 20th Jun 2012, 13:36
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,207
Holding for 3 hrs on one hydraulic system???
misd-agin is offline  
Old 20th Jun 2012, 13:37
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: JFK
Posts: 20
Question

I was always told that if the Max Landing weight is less than or equal to the Max Takeoff Weight a Fuel Dump system is not required. But if the MLW is less than MTOW then a Fuel Dump system is required. This guy had to burn off 3 hours of gas to get to landing weight. That's a BIG difference. Why is there no Fuel Dump system on the 320?

I don't want to second guess this guy (but that is what we do here), but if I just lost 2 of 3 hydraulic systems, I would get that thing on the ground. But I'm a Boeing guy, we can do that. Can you land the Bus overweight?

25R in Vegas is 14,500 feet long.

Last edited by xaf2fe; 20th Jun 2012 at 13:40.
xaf2fe is offline  
Old 20th Jun 2012, 13:42
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 415
In the hold for 3 hours staring at the red LAND ASAP memo?? Surely not.
WHYEYEMAN is offline  
Old 20th Jun 2012, 13:44
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Frankfurt
Age: 45
Posts: 43
Exclamation

Dual hydraulic failure on ECAM:Land ASAP in red....should Take about 30-45 minutes to go through all procedures including over weight landing.....but 3 hours?
By the way,it's allowed to land this plane @MTOW with a Rate of descent less than 360 ft/min.

Last edited by CptRegionalJet; 20th Jun 2012 at 13:49.
CptRegionalJet is offline  
Old 20th Jun 2012, 14:03
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Milano
Age: 50
Posts: 461
Holding for 3 hrs on one hydraulic system???
Apparently not: "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."
Dg800 is offline  
Old 20th Jun 2012, 14:09
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 61
Posts: 5,624
Looks like a good job by a crew who methodically worked through their malfunction(s) to a safe landing. *tips cap*

In re the journalists ...
]One of the pilots declared an emergency and radioed Las Vegas controllers that they were dealing with “quite a few things, but the initial thing is . . . we’ve lost two hydraulic systems.”
I'd rather hear what was actually said on the radio.
The plane was loaded with five hours’ worth of fuel. Because the A320 is incapable of dumping excess fuel, the pilots circled the area south of the Vegas Strip until they’d burned enough to allow the crippled plane to land safely.[/quote]
Appreciate the explanations in this thread in re why fuel dump not required for cert. Was unaware.
[quote]An Airbus manual describes a double hydraulic failure as “improbable in operation.”
But not impossible. And as noted, they apparently got one of them back on line. Stalling an A330 is also "improbable," but it too has happened.
Esser said an Airbus has enough backup systems that the passengers were not in serious danger. “Even if everything failed, there would have been a way to manually land the aircraft,” he said.
Methinks the reporter is mistaken, or the spokesman careless.
If "everything" fails (all hyd systems failed?) I don't think a landing manually will be a matter of controlled flight. (Perhaps differential power with engines would make some sort of control possible ... not sure)

Presuming the A330 and A320 flight control set ups are similar, my slightly out of date flight control system diagram shows that, for example, the cables on the trim wheels require hydraulic boost to move the horizontal stab. Do I understand that correctly?

Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 20th Jun 2012 at 14:21.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 20th Jun 2012, 14:33
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Sale
Posts: 358
I have to admit that 3 hrs seems excessive, as always I have to say that I was not there and there could be a number of considerations missed.

If they lost the green fluid then it's likely that the yellow system was lost due to the PTU running and causing an overheat. Maybe during the takeoff inhibit phase.

They may have waited for this to cool to recover systems before making an approach.

I wouldn't like to land with accumulator only pressure, regardless of how long the runway is.
Field In Sight is offline  
Old 20th Jun 2012, 14:34
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
ok...we really do need an airbus guy to tell us about the hydraulic system on the 'bus

I IMAGINE there is a hydraulic system with each engine (two) plus some sort of alternate system powered by some sort of electrically driven pump.

as we have all been told, the plane can get PITCH control in an emergency from manually moving the stab trim.

that the RUDDER can be used manually (but only with hydraulic power)...please correct me if I am wrong here.

and one CAN use differential engine thrust as well to sort of steer the plane.

BUT three hours of holding? While it is tempting to burn fuel down to landing weight TO AVOID an overweight landing inspection, this is a little much. AS most of you can imagine LAS VEGAS has nice long runways for stopping in this case. I would also like to think that airbus has brake accumulators to aid in stopping if hydraulics are lost. And even accumulators to deploy thrust reversers.?

An overweight landing is not dangerous if done properly (in most cases I think of one must limit descent rate at touchdown to less than 300 fpm....compared with 500-600fpm in a normal landing) I did an overweight landing in a 737 with no problem (I had one engine unable to produce a normal ammount of thrust...but I kept it running till we were on the ground)...and I didn't wait no three hours. IT was the time to do checklists and get vectored back for the apch.


Some questionable things here...MX to be sure has to be checked and a full explanation of why three hours?

I imagine too that the landing would have been no flaps without any hyd?

Last edited by sevenstrokeroll; 20th Jun 2012 at 14:41.
sevenstrokeroll is offline  
Old 20th Jun 2012, 14:36
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: away from home
Age: 60
Posts: 749
xaf2fe wrote:
I was always told that if the Max Landing weight is less than or equal to the Max Takeoff Weight a Fuel Dump system is not required. But if the MLW is less than MTOW then a Fuel Dump system is required. This guy had to burn off 3 hours of gas to get to landing weight. That's a BIG difference. Why is there no Fuel Dump system on the 320?
Someone told you bullshit. Who invents crap like that? I have flown 767s that do not have fuel dumping capability (it is a customer option), and the MLW is 40 tons lower than MTOW.

Last edited by oceancrosser; 20th Jun 2012 at 14:43.
oceancrosser is offline  
Old 20th Jun 2012, 14:45
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 143
Airbus=total hydraulic failure=toast.

Pitothead, that`s rubbish. Look up OO-DLL hit by missile out of Baghdad. Left wing flap mangled beyond recognition, NO HYDRAULICS and landed on the runway with less than 2g recorded.
Saint-Ex is offline  
Old 20th Jun 2012, 14:47
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Fuel Dump

just to try to explain this fuel dump business/requirements.

Very few jets in domestic, medium range service need to have fuel dump/jettison capability.

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.

landing overweight isn't so much the problem with the fuel dump requirement, it is the ability to do the go around after the engine out approach.

while there is a rare ability of some DC9's to dump fuel, the changeover in plane size is right around the 767...and some of the 767's DO NOT have fuel dump nor do they require it. but planes bigger than that (just a gudeline) usually have fuel dump capability.
sevenstrokeroll 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 © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.