Airbus guarded switches colour
Thread Starter
Airbus guarded switches colour
Hi,
Does anybody know why some guarded switches on the Airbus or red while others are black? A possible reference would be appreciated!
Thanks!
Does anybody know why some guarded switches on the Airbus or red while others are black? A possible reference would be appreciated!
Thanks!
Thread Starter
Thats what me and my colleague came up with as well...
However on the 380 the AC ESS override is guarded red but reversible...
Equally you can stop fuel jettison, so even though close it's not conclusive...
Appreciate the input!
However on the 380 the AC ESS override is guarded red but reversible...
Equally you can stop fuel jettison, so even though close it's not conclusive...
Appreciate the input!
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Middle East
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
for the A320, FCTM OP 040 ECAM HANDLING:
"in general, all guarded switches must be xchecked by pf & pm (except on grd) to prevent the flight crew from performing irreversible actions"
however, they don't say anything about the colours.
i will tend to agree with emach: Red- Action on this switch is irreversible. Black- Action on this switch is reversible.
"in general, all guarded switches must be xchecked by pf & pm (except on grd) to prevent the flight crew from performing irreversible actions"
however, they don't say anything about the colours.
i will tend to agree with emach: Red- Action on this switch is irreversible. Black- Action on this switch is reversible.
Last edited by Feather44; 4th Apr 2017 at 18:35.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,763
Received 2,749 Likes
on
1,171 Posts
I was just going to say that.
"Red" is required by regulation for emergency controls, i.e., controls used only for emergency procedures. see 25.1555
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Worldwide
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For what it's worth, the FCTM for the A350 sheds a little light on the Airbus Guarded Switch philosophy:
"...The flight crew must crosscheck the above-listed controls, in order to prevent any inadvertent action by the flight crew with irreversible effects (i.e. when the flight crew operates red guarded controls). If the flight crew inadvertently operates a black guarded control, the subsequent effect is reversible."
This is from A350 FCTM, AOP-30, "HANDLING OF COCKPIT CONTROLS".
Effectively, on the A350 anyway, the red guarded switched are irreversible, black guarded are reversible.
This obviously isn't necessarily applicable to all airbus aircraft, but it certainly gives some insight into the general Guarded Switch philosophy, and does appear to hold up for the A330.
"...The flight crew must crosscheck the above-listed controls, in order to prevent any inadvertent action by the flight crew with irreversible effects (i.e. when the flight crew operates red guarded controls). If the flight crew inadvertently operates a black guarded control, the subsequent effect is reversible."
This is from A350 FCTM, AOP-30, "HANDLING OF COCKPIT CONTROLS".
Effectively, on the A350 anyway, the red guarded switched are irreversible, black guarded are reversible.
This obviously isn't necessarily applicable to all airbus aircraft, but it certainly gives some insight into the general Guarded Switch philosophy, and does appear to hold up for the A330.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Eastern Europe
Age: 41
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was told during ground school that the black guarded switches are more related with maintenance action whereas the red ones are to be controlled during flight in abnormal and emergencies.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: FinalApproach
Age: 42
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Sunrise Senior Living
Posts: 1,338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was told that the Eng and APU Fire Pbs were reversible. They are in the sim - without a "Systems Reset". There is nothing to that effect in the FCOM (unless you know differently) and one would have to be in a lot of trouble to even consider relighting a damaged engine.
Does anyone have any information which might confirm or contradict this assertion?
Does anyone have any information which might confirm or contradict this assertion?
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: N5109.2W10.5
Posts: 720
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi mcdhu,
I can't find the official incident report of BA 9 24 June 1982 but from memory and confirmed by wikipedia, No 4 engine failed first and the Fire Engine Checklist was completed as far as pulling the FCH and arming the bottles. After the remaining 3 engines had also failed (I guess that would count as "one would have to be in a lot of trouble to even consider relighting a damaged engine"), the first engine to be relit was No 4. Fortunately Flt Engineer Barry Townley-Freeman re-stowed the FCH (not in the QRH relight procedure) - so well done Barry.
I can't find the official incident report of BA 9 24 June 1982 but from memory and confirmed by wikipedia, No 4 engine failed first and the Fire Engine Checklist was completed as far as pulling the FCH and arming the bottles. After the remaining 3 engines had also failed (I guess that would count as "one would have to be in a lot of trouble to even consider relighting a damaged engine"), the first engine to be relit was No 4. Fortunately Flt Engineer Barry Townley-Freeman re-stowed the FCH (not in the QRH relight procedure) - so well done Barry.
We have one A320 which has a High Altitude Landing pb and it has a Red guard.Obviously the switch has a reversible action.It reschedules the altitude at which Pax 02 deploys
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: 5° above the Equator, 75° left of Greenwich
Posts: 410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts