Holding pattern and engine fire
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2007
Location: FL390
Age: 38
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Holding pattern and engine fire
Assuming for the sake of conversation that you had an unnoticed serious fuel leak while you are on a standard holding pattern. Is there any real possibility of fire due to ingestion of own fuel in the engines? Any incident happened?
What about fuel dumping? I am flying the 320 so no fuel dumping. Are there other standard procedures for operators damping fuel other than entering a holding?
What about fuel dumping? I am flying the 320 so no fuel dumping. Are there other standard procedures for operators damping fuel other than entering a holding?
Last edited by Lantirn; 21st Nov 2016 at 12:50.
Fuel descends at 500 feet per minute. So in a hold, if you stay level you don't fly into your own dumped fuel.
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Village of Santo Poco
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think INGESTION would be an issue, but a leak somewhere in the pylon area that throws fuel onto some hot parts could cause a problem, I suppose. Of course, this is what managed NOT to happen to Air Transat...
I assume you're referring to fuel dUmping, not dAmping. I suppose you could descend, throw out some flaps, drop the gear. All that would increase fuel burn. I don't see why that's an issue, though, an overweight landing in an A320 is a relatively minor thing. The procedure is detailed in the QRH.
I assume you're referring to fuel dUmping, not dAmping. I suppose you could descend, throw out some flaps, drop the gear. All that would increase fuel burn. I don't see why that's an issue, though, an overweight landing in an A320 is a relatively minor thing. The procedure is detailed in the QRH.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2007
Location: FL390
Age: 38
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Amadis of Gaul,
I meant ingestion and dumping you are correct, sorry for my bad English. I am correcting the initial post
I know what's in my QRH.
My question was about fuel dumping procedures for aircrafts that are capable of. Are they allowed to dump fuel in a holding pattern? Or they have to fly other patterns like vectors from ATC.
Thank you
The question is done to ask for more opinions. It seems that some TRIs in my company love this, but I know it's
stuff.
I meant ingestion and dumping you are correct, sorry for my bad English. I am correcting the initial post
I know what's in my QRH.
My question was about fuel dumping procedures for aircrafts that are capable of. Are they allowed to dump fuel in a holding pattern? Or they have to fly other patterns like vectors from ATC.Thank you
The question is done to ask for more opinions. It seems that some TRIs in my company love this, but I know it's
stuff.
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: wherever
Age: 55
Posts: 1,616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In a previous life I often saw little chicks get a face full of Fuel. I was on the receiving end a few time too.
The most I ever saw was a very small rise in EGT for a very short time.
Don't lose any sleep over this.
The most I ever saw was a very small rise in EGT for a very short time.
Don't lose any sleep over this.
extremely minimal risk to the engines to fly into dumped fuel. Mostly because it's dispersed over seconds in an airstream
A directed fuel leak is another story and if ingested directly into an engine core will cause the engine to surge/stall often emitting flames out the inlet. Military fighters with long inlets are spectacular in this case,
High-bypass engines on large jets are more likely to centrifuge the fuel out the bypass. Its a stretch of combinations but one is more likely to get into trouble sucking pooled fuel off a runway surface if going very slow.
A directed fuel leak is another story and if ingested directly into an engine core will cause the engine to surge/stall often emitting flames out the inlet. Military fighters with long inlets are spectacular in this case,
High-bypass engines on large jets are more likely to centrifuge the fuel out the bypass. Its a stretch of combinations but one is more likely to get into trouble sucking pooled fuel off a runway surface if going very slow.
Some airports/ATCs have fuel dumping areas to send aircraft to if they are going to dump. And over here ATC will announce every 10 minutes or so "Fuel dumping in progress xx thousand feet at the ABC vor xxx radial xx DME."
Lantirn,
Let's assume you are just above stall speed. Even at that speed there is no way that a fuel leak (assuming your leak is external to the engine) is going to make it's way forward against said airspeed airflow and be ingested by the engine. The fuel will be blown aft and atomised by the airflow and by the time you have completed a full holding pattern 360 the atomised fuel will have descended and evaporated.
With an undercowl fuel leak I doubt very much that even with undercowl airloads forcing the fuel forward it will not be ingested by the engine due to the inlet cowl to engine core bulkhead preventing it.
Let's assume you are just above stall speed. Even at that speed there is no way that a fuel leak (assuming your leak is external to the engine) is going to make it's way forward against said airspeed airflow and be ingested by the engine. The fuel will be blown aft and atomised by the airflow and by the time you have completed a full holding pattern 360 the atomised fuel will have descended and evaporated.
With an undercowl fuel leak I doubt very much that even with undercowl airloads forcing the fuel forward it will not be ingested by the engine due to the inlet cowl to engine core bulkhead preventing it.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's never been tested; I doubt, but Reverse Thrust might induce an interesting reaction. And I'm not volunteering. One would hope it WAS noticed and isolated.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is supposed to be prohibited on ground when there is a leak!
Like I said, "if it was noticed." Human muscle responses are very difficult to resist. Very often in the sim, SE landings, I see the average pilots trying to pull both reversers.
Like I said, "if it was noticed." Human muscle responses are very difficult to resist. Very often in the sim, SE landings, I see the average pilots trying to pull both reversers.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2007
Location: FL390
Age: 38
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Been there done that. On my first flights after line training my instructor told me non standard not to select reversers in a flight. He told me like 3 times during the approach.
Was very funny at the end, and never done it in the sim, it worked like charm.
Was very funny at the end, and never done it in the sim, it worked like charm.
Last edited by Lantirn; 23rd Nov 2016 at 21:41.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well on the minibus at least, the average pilot is correct. The recommendation is to select reverse thrust on both engines if at least one reverser is operative, assuming no fuel leak.
Well on the minibus at least, the average pilot is correct. The recommendation is to select reverse thrust on both engines if at least one reverser is operative, assuming no fuel leak.
23rd Nov 2016 15:56
23rd Nov 2016 15:56
If you have even a known reverser inoperative aren't you going to have steering issues?
I seem to recall a very high rate of runway excursion issues on the bus as well as other planes when some reversers were locked out if only because pilots were not experienced in this operation differing from everyday rote.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the risk of sounding flippant, because the FCTM and MEL say so!
I imagine it's to cater for mis-selection of the wrong reverser if one is out. The guidance says select both for RTO and landing.
I imagine it's to cater for mis-selection of the wrong reverser if one is out. The guidance says select both for RTO and landing.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the risk of sounding flippant, because the FCTM and MEL say so!
I imagine it's to cater for mis-selection of the wrong reverser if one is out. The guidance says select both for RTO and landing.
I'm always curious about these instructions by a manufacturer. This scenario is not a special technical difference to the type. It is a case of airmanship and judgement. I can not see what it has to do with an Airbus v Boeing v another type. If that is the case then I can not see the authority with which a single manufacturer makes that an FCTM issue.
If someone can enlighten me with sound reasoning I am open to discussion.
What I have seen, in the sim, is a pilot, in an already non-normal situation, who is a little nervous, try to select both reversers and become confused and concentrate on the blocked reverser and not focus 100% on completing what up till then was a successful landing.
IMHO, if in doubt, it is less risky to rely on TR's and just use auto brakes of size 11's.
I imagine it's to cater for mis-selection of the wrong reverser if one is out. The guidance says select both for RTO and landing.
I'm always curious about these instructions by a manufacturer. This scenario is not a special technical difference to the type. It is a case of airmanship and judgement. I can not see what it has to do with an Airbus v Boeing v another type. If that is the case then I can not see the authority with which a single manufacturer makes that an FCTM issue.
If someone can enlighten me with sound reasoning I am open to discussion.
What I have seen, in the sim, is a pilot, in an already non-normal situation, who is a little nervous, try to select both reversers and become confused and concentrate on the blocked reverser and not focus 100% on completing what up till then was a successful landing.
IMHO, if in doubt, it is less risky to rely on TR's and just use auto brakes of size 11's.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nirvana..HAHA..just kidding but,if you can tell me where it is!
Posts: 350
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lantirn ,
2 minute legs in standard racetrack holding pattern.Minimum altitude 4000' but now in UK at least,FL100. Advise ATC,not near oil rigs,thunderstorms etc..
2 minute legs in standard racetrack holding pattern.Minimum altitude 4000' but now in UK at least,FL100. Advise ATC,not near oil rigs,thunderstorms etc..
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regarding problems such as fire due to ingesting own fuel in a holding pattern I haven't heard of this happening ever in the history of aviation.
But somehow it seems to be a favourite of training departments and comes up (too) often as a sim discussion item
But somehow it seems to be a favourite of training departments and comes up (too) often as a sim discussion item