A320 declares "Emergency" because of autobrake fult

[Commander Taco]

Originally Posted by msbbarratt

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.

An intentional touch and go is not a manoeuvre that is allowed. They would have been well outside of SOPs had they have done so. Go-arounds after touchdown are taught by some carriers, but taught as an emergency procedure only.

[Check Airman]

Originally Posted by Commander Taco

An intentional touch and go is not a manoeuvre that is allowed. They would have been well outside of SOPs had they have done so. Go-arounds after touchdown are taught by some carriers, but taught as an emergency procedure only.

Devil's advocate. The crew declared an emergency. If they determined that the safest course of action is a touch and go, why not? It's not inherently dangerous.

GA after touchdown isn't an emergency procedure at my shop. We practice it every time we're in the sim.

[gearlever]

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.

[condor17]

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 .

[vilas]

a yellow a/brake caution [ details now fzzy ] .

If it is Airbus can you explain this? Because no A/B on yellow it is on green.

[FlightDetent]

Wartime story from 757?

[punkalouver]

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

[vilas]

Originally Posted by punkalouver

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

Although the investigation report doesn't exactly cover itself with glory what is absolutely clear is for a performance limited airfield the experienced PIC's performance was far below the required. Below 180 ft RA the aircraft was allowed to deviate to 3/4 below GS and then was flown back to GS. So obviously the reduced ROD was going to shift the touchdown point and the very high flare at 55ft aggravated the problem. He continued to float at 2ft and instead of pushing the stick forward he is pleading the aircraft to touch down. On approach to RW limited airport any problems with braking system a goaround and proper assessment of threat and plan is required. The way he landed he had no chance to stop with ASkid failure. However he seems to have been faulted because the normal brake was available and there was no need to switch off antiskid. All he had to do was touch down at normal point and max manual braking.

[punkalouver]

Originally Posted by vilas

However he seems to have been faulted because the normal brake was available and there was no need to switch off antiskid.All he had to do was touch down at normal point and max manual braking.

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. "

[vilas]

Originally Posted by punkalouver

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. "

It's evident that inquiry officer either didn't know much about A320 braking system or English. There's evidence of both. With Brakes Auto Brake fault the system doesn't change to alternate. It remains on Normal brake (green). but manual peddle braking is required. With Brake Normal brake Fault it will automatically change to alternate yellow system brake with anti skid. You just apply max peddle braking. But if it doesn't change to yellow then you have to manually select Antiskid NWS off. Then you get braking from yellow system without ASkid where you must apply only 1000psi to prevent tire burst. Here my guess is pilot landed deep ans the runway end was appearing followed loss of braking procedure which was incorrect.

[punkalouver]

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.

[scifi]

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.
.

[oceancrosser]

Break Auto Brake or Brake Auto Break Fault?
I think I´ll give the Airbus class a miss...

[vilas]

Originally Posted by oceancrosser

Break Auto Brake or Brake Auto Break Fault?
I think I´ll give the Airbus class a miss...

It is Brake the system, Auto Brake fault is failure.
unless you are having fun with spelling