Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Tech Log
Reload this Page >

A320 Fuel Leak

Wikiposts
Search

Notices
Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

A320 Fuel Leak

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 9th December 2016 | 13:31
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
From: Above the Horizon
A320 Fuel Leak

In the fuel leak procedure for A320 it is stated that No Reversers should be deployed on landing roll. Can someone please explain the reason for this? Thanks
Boyington is offline  
Reply
Old 9th December 2016 | 13:46
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
From: Glasgow
Don't know the official reason but I would guess that the main issue would be as follows:

1) Fuel leak could be coming from anywhere but wings/engines are prime locations for a leak.

2) In landing run fuel leak will be trailing fuel behind as the plane lands

3) Thrust reversers could/would push fuel (leaked) and air forwards an into the engine intakes. This is likely to cause a flame out of the back and cover the whole airframe in a mixture of fuel and air.

4) Atomised fuel air mixture is explosive/fire risk. In general it's better to leave this behind you than spray it in front of the engines :-)

So all in all probably not a good idea - would guess this applies to all jets with TR and not just the 320.

Just my thoughts - actual reason could be more obscure.
Mascot PPL is offline  
Reply
Old 9th December 2016 | 13:47
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,428
Likes: 3
From: Not At Home
One reason and one reason only.
It's to allow the TRE to catch you out that you didn't finish reading the whole checklist.
EcamSurprise is offline  
Reply
Old 9th December 2016 | 13:53
  #4 (permalink)  
Community Builder
Community Influencer
25 Anniversary
 
Joined: Nov 1999
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 3,150
Likes: 744
From: UK
@ EcamSurprise

Could they have made that note any smaller?
Uplinker is online now  
Reply
Old 9th December 2016 | 14:04
  #5 (permalink)  
15 Anniversary
 
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 39
From: Wanderlust
Yes. The reverse may cause re ingestion of fuel vapour into engine intake. Which is hazardous.
vilas is offline  
Reply
Old 9th December 2016 | 14:45
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 720
Likes: 1
From: N5109.2W10.5
The reverse may cause re ingestion of fuel vapour into engine intake.
It is more likely to prevent fuel being thrown over the fuselage.
See https://assets.publishing.service.go...988_G-BGJL.pdf 2nd picture.
Goldenrivett is offline  
Reply

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.