Aer Lingus flight EI110 makes emergency landing in JFK
 

Failure of hydraulic system forces Aer Lingus 757 to return to JFK after departure. No reports of injuries. Brake fire extinguished after emergency landing.

Print report: Aer Lingus plane makes emergency landing at JFK · TheJournal.ie

Reports that it was a single hydraulic system failure yet reported that it landed sans flaps extended

Not a professional but thought it would need to be dual system failure for that to occur?

Also, good ol the Journal showing a A330-200 file photo for a 757 report...

When did Aer Lingus get 757's??

They have three 757's on wet lease from Air Contractors

I like the comment about jets having standby motors if the hydraulics fail. Which hydraulic flight controlled models would have that? I've yet to see one.

The Ram Air Turbine is an emergency backup for hydraulics used on quiet a few types.
On the 757 this provides hydraulic power to the centre system for flight controls.

Gear doors still down in the pics so it looks like a left Hydraulic system failure..

The loss of a single hydraulic amongst 3 systems is not an emergency!

...well on the Airbus, surely if the yellow hydraulics fail, the green takes over, with the blue still there as another standby? I guess the B757 is a similar system?

Listening to the ATC recording, tea and biscuits all round.:D

Really calm and professional all round. Crew were not rushed and kept everone informed. ATC supported as required.

Reassuring.

Sorry
 

I'd bemoan the fact that an apparent adult ATC guy cannot convert kilos to pounds in this day and age.

Yep, nice job. :ok:

About the only thing I would have done differently is to declare an emergency.

The recent thinking, under U.S. regs anyway, is that it gives you carte blanche with whatever decisions you make as PIC. And it's CYA for stuff like landing back at JFK without getting re-dispatched.

Of course, if you have time and remember, you get on the sat phone and have a big group think with all the geniuses on the ground back at headquarters (kinda like PPRuNe, come to think of it ;)). But, if they give advice that is later found to be wrong and you believed it, it was your fault because you trusted them. I had a colleague on the sat phone with maintenance pop and reset a circuit breaker in flight that fixed a problem only to find out afterward that the feds were hopping mad because the procedure was not listed in the AOM.

I'm thinking one possibility is that they perhaps took off with either 5 or 15 degrees of flaps and got a trailing edge flap asymmetry indication when the flaps were retracted after takeoff accompanied by the indication of loss of left system hydraulic pressure (TE FLAP ASYM and L HYD SYS PRESS). The asymmetry would prevent alternate flap extension on the trailing edge flaps (or leading edge slats if they had LE SLAT ASYM).

In years past I've seen it debated here and elsewhere but loss of a major hydraulic system prior to a crossing almost always means you are turning back in an ETOPS plane in my opinion.

The old argument would have been that you don't really need the left hydraulic system on the 757 until you land and then you're going to have to use alternate systems to lower the gear and flaps anyway so you might as well do it on the other side of the pond.

But, you usually don't know what other systems, if any, were damaged by the event that caused the loss of hydraulics so not making the crossing is a very wise move in my view.

In this Aer Lingus case, I suspect some flaps were still extended and locked from moving by an asymmetry so the no-go decision was a done deal.

About the only thing I would have done differently is to declare an emergency.

The recent thinking, under U.S. regs anyway, is that it gives you carte blanche with whatever decisions you make as PIC. And it's CYA for stuff like landing back at JFK without getting re-dispatched.

I understand the CYA stuff...but seriously, if someone would give them a hard time for returning to JFK without getting re-dispatched, they need to get their heads checked. Decades ago I was taught that declaring an emergency means "grave and imminent danger to the aircraft or lives", and that tying up scarce resources is not a good practice if there is no such grave and imminent danger. But maybe I'm naive.

You don't have to get "re-dispatched" for a diversion, ATB, or emergency.

RAT's and PTU's are backup sources of power for hydraulics. If that's what the poster meant that's fine. If he believes there's backup systems for the loss of hydraulics he's in for a big surprise.

Cripes, here we go again. Yes, Mayday is "Save our souls" ; Pan Pan Pan is a state of urgency. One out of three hydraulics failing is not, in itself, a state of "Emergency". Sounds like there were other failures going on that led the guys to elect for an immediate return , declaring a mayday, preparing for overweight landing & limited braking. A single hydraulic failure, out of three, in itself would have me run the check-list and then ask the Senior Cabin attendant what's for Dinner .

787 has a couple of electrically powered spoilers.
I think the A380 has hydraulic power pack actuators which are independent of the main central hydraulic systems. I think the VC10 and Vulcan were leaders in this field.

PTU
 

Re PTU’s etc in post #17. Certainly on the 75, the purpose of the PTU is to drive some remnants of the main (L) system in the event of a L Hyd loss of contents (Flaps, gear, nose wheel steering and, for ETOPS, a hyd gen). The trick, of course, is to know where the actual leak has occurred. If it is above the stack pipe, the PTU will operate as per the tin, but if it is below it, then “Misd-agin’s” comment about a surprise is nearer the mark. However, there is one fairly big clue as to where the leak might lie, thus obviating any surprises later on.:ok:
Prober

If you decide to divert or do an air turnback without declaring an emergency, I would suggest that it would be extremely wise to coordinate with your dispatcher under Part 121 rules these days. Just my opinion. ;)

I'll agree that you don't have to be re-dispatched to proceed to a listed alternate for weather.

It sounds nutty and in some cases changes nothing from a safety standpoint, but the latest guidance we are given is when in doubt, declare the emergency. Maybe it comes from our OI (the person formerly known as the POI). It's a compliance thing, the thinking is that if you deviated from your dispatched route using your captain's authority in an emergency situation, why didn't you declare an emergency if you claim to have had an emergency situation?

Here's a reference:

Again, I'd be less inclined to continue across the pond like that than in years past. And, if you're going to lose a hydraulic system on a '75, I would say the left system is the worst one to do without. But, it's been a long time since I took the oral...

I realize that the Aer Lingus wet lease was not operated under an FAA certificate and there may have been some incentive not to declare an emergency under their operating rules.

But yes, I would have declared an emergency in this case. At least the trucks were already there to quickly put out the wheel fire on landing. :ok: