A320 Engine Fire at VR

[tdracer]

Originally Posted by FullWings

As FF above, I regard an engine fire warning as something that requires action but not to the point of compromising safety in other ways. What does a fire indication tell you? All it means is that, false warnings aside, the temperature in the nacelle has reached a certain point (175 to 300C in some installations, depending on which area) and if the warning is still active, that the temperature is still above that level. It doesn’t necessarily follow that you are burning brightly and dropping bits of wing and engine over the countryside...

It probably bears noting here that a significant percentage of fire warnings are either false alarms, or simply nacelle overheats related to things like burst ducts. The numbers vary considerably between different airframes and engine types (no idea what the numbers are for an A320), but there are some (older) installations where the numbers approach 50% false. Most newer installations are better than that, but none are 100% accurate. I only know of one scenario where engine fire required absolute immediate action to save the aircraft - that was a combustor case rupture right on the top - resulting in 3000 deg F was impinging directly on the strut and could compromise the spar fuel shutoff valve in something like 30 seconds (leaving you unable to turn off the fuel to the fire). It's probably worth noting that there is no record of this ever actually happening.
Don't panic, do the checklist.

I think this is sound advice.

Bingo!

[vilas]

Tdracer

It probably bears noting here that a significant percentage of fire warnings are either false alarms, or simply nacelle overheats related to things like burst ducts

Which is true and a few reject takeoffs due to fire warning even after V1 resulting in runway overrun were found to be false alarms. While there is no doubt that Checklist should always be done and are done but perhaps you could shed some light when the checklist goes silent after the second agent discharge and the fire is not out. Although not many incidents but why would it happen and how serious would be the implications. Thanks

[Max Angle]

Does any data exist on the effectiveness of the fire extinguishing systems? It is such a rare event that maybe there isn't but it would be interesting to know how many fire warnings persist after both bottles have been fired.

[lomapaseo]

Originally Posted by Max Angle

Does any data exist on the effectiveness of the fire extinguishing systems? It is such a rare event that maybe there isn't but it would be interesting to know how many fire warnings persist after both bottles have been fired.

as long as your asking one question. It also makes sense to ask how many real fires existed after using the extinguishing system

and it now appears we have morphed into any aircraft fire source, rather than just an engine, so be sure and make that is clear in a response

The biggest problem we have seen in the data are the false warnings followed by using up the extinguishing system against the much rarer but far more serious persistent fire.

The procedures developed up to now, recognize this and one should think hard before abandoning them

[tdracer]

Originally Posted by vilas

Tdracer
While there is no doubt that Checklist should always be done and are done but perhaps you could shed some light when the checklist goes silent after the second agent discharge and the fire is not out. Although not many incidents but why would it happen and how serious would be the implications. Thanks

Sorry, but in that regard you're well out of my area of expertise.

Max Angle - some sort of Halon compound is the most common extinguishing agent for aircraft engines. However Halon is considered environmentally nasty and new stuff hasn't been made for many years. Hence some new installations use more environmentally friendly agents - the KC-46 uses something that's basically baking soda.
I've never heard any concerns regarding the effectiveness of Halon - only concerns about it's environmental impact - the stuff seems to work quite well. The newer stuff I'm not so sure about - although my coworkers responsible for fire safety didn't seem overly concerned.

[Lazy Donkey]

At a previous airline, the Airbus FMGS secondary flight plan was simply a “copy of the Active”. Not a good plan. It leaves one with a really significant programming deficit should you need to fly an immediate return.

What should be done with the secondary is, after the last point on your SID, use a lateral key to enable the “New Destination” prompt. Insert CYVR. Insert the ATIS landing runway, and on the SEC PERF page, insert the weather and the MDA or DH. And on the G/A page, set the MAP altitude as the acceleration altitude. Now a couple more useful keystrokes. A lateral off the new destination (CYVR) will give you the ALTNT prompt, where you can put in KSEA. Why not? So established, the secondary flt plan is completely set for the return approach, the missed approach, and a nearby alternate. All speeds, fuel predictions and weights will be accurate as soon as it is activated. Setting this out, on the written page, it sounds like a lot of work – but with just a bit of practice, these significant FMGC inputs rob one of only a couple quick gulps of coffee.

Now to the “Immediate Return Briefing” that you simply append to your standard Take-Off Emergency Briefing:

“If it is imperative to get the aircraft on the ground right away, same ECAM drill; we’ll clean up to 1+F, climb at S Spd to ___’ ASL,activate the SEC, activate the APPR. and take vectors/self position ourselves for a downwind L/R for an ILS/RNAV/etc. Rwy __. We are over the Ldg Wt. however, for Rwy__, the APP. climb gradients and field length are/are not limiting. We will have to run the Over Wt. Ldg Checklist. Questions, concerns, comments?”

And the procedure:

IMMEDIATE RETURN

Engine Failure and/or Fire

- as per V1 fail to “Stop ECAM” then:
- With the initial ECAM items complete, and at or above the acceleration altitude – press ALT.
- Accelerate and clean up.
- At “F” speed, “Flap 1”
- Select “S” speed
- At “S” speed, ALT pull set MCT

• Select and verify an appropriate altitude.
  - Bird On and obtain a clearance or self position to downwind

- At Alt* activate the SEC, and activate the approach.
- Call for the Status page, and ask for a review of the landing and stopping items.
- Call for the “Overweight Landing QRH”.
- Abeam the threshold start timing, or instruct ATC for an appropriate gate.
- At 45 seconds (for 1500’) call “Flap 2, A/P off, F/D off, set Runway Track”.
- When flap 2, “Gear down”.
- When gear down, “Flap 3 Ldg Checklist”. (all engine, “Flap Full Ldg Checklist”)

• - Just check Gear and appropriate Flap.
  -Secure/Alert the cabin.

- Land
- After stopping prepare for Evac, as per RTO.

Documents state (and having run performance examples confirm) that if you took off from the runway, you will be able to land on it – barring a deterioration of the RSC (runway surface condition) so long as you have at least one reverser operative.

The serious and practical point is, that with just half a minute of preflight attention and programming, you are completely set up for a quick return and can devote your time to the situation and the landing – not hopelessly trying to do all that plus correctly enter all the keyboard work while you're on fire and everybody is talking at you.

[HME]

Quick return

Most pilots are not trained enough to fly back immediately. The sim tarining is not a training but just a checkTraining means doing and doing until you can do the lesson. You can't just learn to do that from booksThis is just the beginning. Once you have learned it, you have to stay in practice and not just the check every 5 months. That's not enoughThe quick return is easy to do once you're trained. If you are not trained, but only checked every 5 months, after a few years you will no longer be able to do it. Checks are a must - training as well.