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

Is the Ram Air Turbine considered an AC source?

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

Is the Ram Air Turbine considered an AC source?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 28th Nov 2018, 07:26
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Egypt
Age: 31
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Is the Ram Air Turbine considered an AC source?

Hello fellow pilots,
This question might be type specific. However I appreciate general philosophy but I'm concerned more about the Embraer E190/170.
We have a company policy states that with a single AC source functioning onboard we shall declare emergency. the conflict then rises which is whether to declare emergency over single IDG ,with both otherside and apu gen inop, or not since we still have one more emergency source (RAT).
MohBadawi is offline  
Old 28th Nov 2018, 15:33
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Age: 56
Posts: 953
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by MohBadawi
Hello fellow pilots,
This question might be type specific. However I appreciate general philosophy but I'm concerned more about the Embraer E190/170.
We have a company policy states that with a single AC source functioning onboard we shall declare emergency. the conflict then rises which is whether to declare emergency over single IDG ,with both otherside and apu gen inop, or not since we still have one more emergency source (RAT).
A320, same setup AFAIK. I was dispatched with number 2 GEN INOP, so we flew with the APU running and the APU GEN providing the second source. On leg 2 we had an auto-shutdown of the APU in cruise. I decided to divert, and asked for priority handling. No emergency was declared, and the company agreed with my decision. I would not continue on one GEN because I think the RAT is not a totally valid source of AC power as it will only power certain systems and not all the time (on the A320 you lose the RAT around 140kts, so there is a chance yours screens will go blank during the approach...). as far as your company policy goes, if it is required to declare an emergency when you are down to one source, I would take that as one REGULAR source and not count the RAT. If your company writes black and white policy about when to declare emergencies, they really need to write black and white guidance about what is considered a valid AC source.
hans brinker is offline  
Old 28th Nov 2018, 16:02
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,528
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Agree with hans. I wouldn't go off knowing that the RAT is my only backup.
Check Airman is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2018, 06:13
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: varied
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Does the RAT not load shed, on the Embraer, at around 130kts? If so I wouldn’t consider it a reliable AC source!

Peter Chube is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2018, 14:38
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,407
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
on the A320 you lose the RAT around 140kts, so there is a chance yours screens will go blank during the approach.
Only very old A320s Rat used to stall on lowering the gear but not so anymore. 140kts is minimum approach speed for Rat it will guarantee it's operation all the time. Decision to divert will depend on some factors as the duration of the flight and maintenance at the next station. CRTare lost only at 50kts during roll out.
vilas is offline  

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 © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.