A-320 Simulator Scenario
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: The Weather out there today is hot and humid
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A-320 Simulator Scenario
Thatīs the deal:
Go around
Yellow and Green hydraulic system fails ( Still having Flaps 3)
Runway is contaminated (3400m long)
So what about my landing distance; do I still use the factor 2.45 which is for Y and G System with contam. Rwy?
Or is it a lower factor since I still have Flaps 3. If I use 2.45 I can not go back and land
Anybody has some hints for me?
Thankīs
Flyboy
Go around
Yellow and Green hydraulic system fails ( Still having Flaps 3)
Runway is contaminated (3400m long)
So what about my landing distance; do I still use the factor 2.45 which is for Y and G System with contam. Rwy?
Or is it a lower factor since I still have Flaps 3. If I use 2.45 I can not go back and land
Anybody has some hints for me?
Thankīs
Flyboy
Last edited by flyboy320; 29th Feb 2008 at 09:20. Reason: replaced":" by a ","
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: I dont know anymore
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The qrh says landing config 3 and the x2.45 factor is correct for contaminated rwy.
If you cannot return for landing you will have to go to your alternate, or choose another that satisfies your landing distance requirements. Remember to take into account the x2.8 factor for fuel with gear down.
If you cannot return for landing you will have to go to your alternate, or choose another that satisfies your landing distance requirements. Remember to take into account the x2.8 factor for fuel with gear down.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 783
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't fly A320s yet (don't shoot me down though!) but from a safety POV the most conservative judgement is best - in the engineering industry, I mean...
You need to have adequate landing distance for all the applicable factors. The critical (limiting) thing would be the hyd. system failure(s) as you said, and that would not allow for another approach to that runway. Note: opinion of an engineer, not a pilot! 
You need to have adequate landing distance for all the applicable factors. The critical (limiting) thing would be the hyd. system failure(s) as you said, and that would not allow for another approach to that runway. Note: opinion of an engineer, not a pilot!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: The Weather out there today is hot and humid
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airbus figures that with a HYD green+yellow failure you have flaps at 0. But thatīs not the case in this scenario. Since we still have slats and the Flaps are stuck at pos 3 during G/A we have a "normal" flaps config.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Scotland
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Awaiting to be shot down in flames here but I believe with a G + Y hydraulic failure only the slats will will run as they will be driven by the blue system. I was taught by a captain many moons ago that it gets to a point with some of these scenarios that "you have to land somewhere" and with the greatly increased fuel comsumption I would be inclinded to stay where I was unless there is another uncontaminted runway of suitable length very close by.
Best regards
OP
Best regards
OP
Hint: whoever made up this scenario is either sadist or is trying to make a point that Airbus doesn't include everything that it should in manuals (I have to concur on that).
Factor 2.45 for landing with blue hyd only, caters for loss of normal braking, alternate braking, most of the ground spoilers and flaps. However in your case, with flaps locked at 3, your Vapp should be Vref+10, not Vref+25 as in the case of G+Y HYD loss. So you have to take the factor for Flaps=3 and slats=3 (1.25) and multiply it with factor for accu braking only on contamined runway.
Oh, bugger, it seems that neither of these is included in FCOM.
Now, if my assumptions are correct, to get factor of 2.45, Airbus has multiplied factors for increased Vref and loss of normal braking. Factor for landing with flaps and slats stuck at three is 1.25 and for slats 3 and flaps zero is 1.60 on contamined runway. If ve divide 2.45 with 1.6, we get 1.53, which is (I think... I guess.. I hope) our accu braking only factor. Now we'll multiply it with 1.25, for conf3 landing and our coveted factor turns out to be 1.913.
However, if there's another clean runway nearby, I wouldn't be courageous enough to check whether my calculations are correct. And with gear stuck down, you'd be lucky to get 70 miles out of a ton of fuel. And with flaps hanging out too, it would be even less.
So it easily turns into the case of landing notwithstanding legality and trying to overrun with the least possible speed. Good thing it's sim scenario only.
Factor 2.45 for landing with blue hyd only, caters for loss of normal braking, alternate braking, most of the ground spoilers and flaps. However in your case, with flaps locked at 3, your Vapp should be Vref+10, not Vref+25 as in the case of G+Y HYD loss. So you have to take the factor for Flaps=3 and slats=3 (1.25) and multiply it with factor for accu braking only on contamined runway.
Oh, bugger, it seems that neither of these is included in FCOM.
Now, if my assumptions are correct, to get factor of 2.45, Airbus has multiplied factors for increased Vref and loss of normal braking. Factor for landing with flaps and slats stuck at three is 1.25 and for slats 3 and flaps zero is 1.60 on contamined runway. If ve divide 2.45 with 1.6, we get 1.53, which is (I think... I guess.. I hope) our accu braking only factor. Now we'll multiply it with 1.25, for conf3 landing and our coveted factor turns out to be 1.913.
However, if there's another clean runway nearby, I wouldn't be courageous enough to check whether my calculations are correct. And with gear stuck down, you'd be lucky to get 70 miles out of a ton of fuel. And with flaps hanging out too, it would be even less.
So it easily turns into the case of landing notwithstanding legality and trying to overrun with the least possible speed. Good thing it's sim scenario only.
Beau_Peep
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: India
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a good remedy for such scenario..
flyboy, I have an excellent remedy for such a simple scenario...
remedy is called "single malt scotch therapy"... you need it at an urgent basis... take the therapy and the solution will automatically come from within "screw it.."
you seem to me, one of those guys, who want to be strapped up with readymade solutions to all remote possibilities.. the scenario you have mentioned is not even remote... it is as if GOD doesn't want you to be in the air at all...
cheers...
remedy is called "single malt scotch therapy"... you need it at an urgent basis... take the therapy and the solution will automatically come from within "screw it.."
you seem to me, one of those guys, who want to be strapped up with readymade solutions to all remote possibilities.. the scenario you have mentioned is not even remote... it is as if GOD doesn't want you to be in the air at all...
cheers...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: The Weather out there today is hot and humid
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Clandestino: Yes I figured out a similar factor like you ( just took a different approach) and no, there is no nearby alternate; by the way I forgot to mention that the airport has an elevation of more than 6000 ft with an ISA+20....
@indigo: yes, the "single malt scotch therapy" might be the only solution
greetings
Flyboy
@indigo: yes, the "single malt scotch therapy" might be the only solution
greetings
Flyboy
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting scenario.
Airbus, or indeed any manufacturer, can not provide procedures and calculations for every possible combination of failures. So when something like this happens, you are are both test pilots.
We have an aircraft in a severely degraded state. The configuration is so abnormal that it was not considered by the manufacturer.
Why attempt to calculate the required LDR distance at all? Any figures you come up with will be at best just educated guesses.
Locate all the airports you could reasonably get to with the fuel onboard, considering of course the fact that you will have to fly there with gear down and F3.
Pick the runway that is going to slow down the aircraft the most by the time you get to the end of it.
And if you go off the end of the runway?
Well, it would be pretty hard to argue against your decision from either an airmanship, or legal, point of view.
Airbus, or indeed any manufacturer, can not provide procedures and calculations for every possible combination of failures. So when something like this happens, you are are both test pilots.
We have an aircraft in a severely degraded state. The configuration is so abnormal that it was not considered by the manufacturer.
Why attempt to calculate the required LDR distance at all? Any figures you come up with will be at best just educated guesses.
Locate all the airports you could reasonably get to with the fuel onboard, considering of course the fact that you will have to fly there with gear down and F3.
Pick the runway that is going to slow down the aircraft the most by the time you get to the end of it.
And if you go off the end of the runway?
Well, it would be pretty hard to argue against your decision from either an airmanship, or legal, point of view.
