A320 declares "Emergency" because of autobrake fult
If they had carried on with the original approach, could they not have simply turned it into a touch and go if they found the brakes to be inoperative when they pushed the pedals?
I suppose there was a chance that's the brakes could kinda half work, enough to prevent returning to flight. I can see an argument for not touching the ground so that you can get the airport prepped for a tricky landing after a second approach.
I suppose there was a chance that's the brakes could kinda half work, enough to prevent returning to flight. I can see an argument for not touching the ground so that you can get the airport prepped for a tricky landing after a second approach.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GA after touchdown isn't an emergency procedure at my shop. We practice it every time we're in the sim.
Many moons ago on a 737NG of a major EU carrier starting take off roll in VMC/daylight , the very junior FO yelled "STOP".
CPT aborted.
CPT: What was wrong?
FO: We had the FD OFF.
CPT aborted.
CPT: What was wrong?
FO: We had the FD OFF.
Airborne at AMS with a 30 min leg to LHR in a 75 . 'Oh look' , quoth I a yellow a/brake caution [ details now fzzy ] . F/O flying ' man brakes then ' .
I get the QRH out , quite a read thru' ... ' better slow down , this'll take a while ' .
End result , could take in excess of 3200m landing roll ! Didn't really need that , but firetrucks raced after us on roll out ; and the only way to get them out and following is a Mayday / Pan .
We both felt a bit silly ........ However .......
.....
It was the f/o's sector so he explained to pax !
rgds condor .
I get the QRH out , quite a read thru' ... ' better slow down , this'll take a while ' .
End result , could take in excess of 3200m landing roll ! Didn't really need that , but firetrucks raced after us on roll out ; and the only way to get them out and following is a Mayday / Pan .
We both felt a bit silly ........ However .......
.....
It was the f/o's sector so he explained to pax !
rgds condor .
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Here, there, and everywhere
Posts: 1,122
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes
on
7 Posts
Could someone explain what happened in this A320 incident. The crew was faulted for improper braking.
http://dgca.gov.in/accident/reports/incident/VT-ESL.pdf
http://dgca.gov.in/accident/reports/incident/VT-ESL.pdf
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could someone explain what happened in this A320 incident. The crew was faulted for improper braking.
http://dgca.gov.in/accident/reports/incident/VT-ESL.pdf
http://dgca.gov.in/accident/reports/incident/VT-ESL.pdf
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Here, there, and everywhere
Posts: 1,122
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes
on
7 Posts
"At 064506 UTC, • Max brake pedals deflection was reached after 08 sec. • The deceleration progressively increased and stabilized between +0.2g and +0.25g. • The ground speed decreased from 145kt to 125kt. As there was ECAM message of “Break Auto Break Fault” during landing, aircraft was on alternate braking, brake pedal order commanded alternate braking pressures. However the deceleration experienced by the aircraft remained low (between +0.2 and +0.25g) despite max brake pedal application.
From 064506 UTC after touchdown to 064517 UTC, the brake pedals were maintained to full deflection while aircraft deceleration remained constant. As a consequence, the ground speed continued to decrease regularly from 125kt to 76kt.
At 064517 UTC, the anti-skid was turned off as per Abnormal and Emergency procedures. Aircraft continued to decelerate. "
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But the report makes it sound like the alternate brakes were being used but not slowing the aircraft down very much.
"At 064506 UTC, • Max brake pedals deflection was reached after 08 sec. • The deceleration progressively increased and stabilized between +0.2g and +0.25g. • The ground speed decreased from 145kt to 125kt. As there was ECAM message of “Break Auto Break Fault” during landing, aircraft was on alternate braking, brake pedal order commanded alternate braking pressures. However the deceleration experienced by the aircraft remained low (between +0.2 and +0.25g) despite max brake pedal application.
From 064506 UTC after touchdown to 064517 UTC, the brake pedals were maintained to full deflection while aircraft deceleration remained constant. As a consequence, the ground speed continued to decrease regularly from 125kt to 76kt.
At 064517 UTC, the anti-skid was turned off as per Abnormal and Emergency procedures. Aircraft continued to decelerate. "
"At 064506 UTC, • Max brake pedals deflection was reached after 08 sec. • The deceleration progressively increased and stabilized between +0.2g and +0.25g. • The ground speed decreased from 145kt to 125kt. As there was ECAM message of “Break Auto Break Fault” during landing, aircraft was on alternate braking, brake pedal order commanded alternate braking pressures. However the deceleration experienced by the aircraft remained low (between +0.2 and +0.25g) despite max brake pedal application.
From 064506 UTC after touchdown to 064517 UTC, the brake pedals were maintained to full deflection while aircraft deceleration remained constant. As a consequence, the ground speed continued to decrease regularly from 125kt to 76kt.
At 064517 UTC, the anti-skid was turned off as per Abnormal and Emergency procedures. Aircraft continued to decelerate. "
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Here, there, and everywhere
Posts: 1,122
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes
on
7 Posts
The report says that the Autobrake fault was due to a faulty servo valve for one of the 8 main wheels(Indian Airbus): "During approach when the landing gear was selected down “Brake Auto Brake Fault” ECAM warning message was triggered at 0642 UTC with failure message of “BRK NORM SERVOVLV7 (80GG)”.
Later in the report, it states that braking action was reduced due to the loss of the servo valve: "High pitch angle at touchdown, prolonged flare and low response of braking action due to the failure of servo valve along with the improper application of emergency checklist resulted into increase in the landing distance and runway overrun at Jammu airport."
One would think that losing only one of seven servo valves would hardly be noticable for the difference in braking capability.
Later in the report, it states that braking action was reduced due to the loss of the servo valve: "High pitch angle at touchdown, prolonged flare and low response of braking action due to the failure of servo valve along with the improper application of emergency checklist resulted into increase in the landing distance and runway overrun at Jammu airport."
One would think that losing only one of seven servo valves would hardly be noticable for the difference in braking capability.
What is so wrong with calling the trucks out. They spend most of their time thinking up reasonable practice scenarios, that they would welcome any event that is mildly out of the ordinary.
.
.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts