A320 Engine Fire

[delay256]

On a recent sim eval some of the pilots got an engine fire at V1, the drill was complete with all the ECAM actions completed and the fire was still not out.

The weather was VFR and my question is that should the crew quickly turn around and reprogram the FMS and configure to land in a tailwind or fly a tight circuit pattern to rejoin and fly relatively more stable approach?

I understand if your airplane is burning up you want to get on the ground as quickly as possible but we tried the quick turn around scenario in the sim and it was quite challenging to get it turned around expeditiously. (This particular A320 has a tailwind limitation of 10knots)

Check Captain was taking all of this into consideration.

Appreciate your thoughts.

[Colonel Sanders]

we tried the quick turn around scenario in the sim and it was quite challenging to get it turned around expeditiously

Keep in mind the governing equation:

Radius = velocity squared / acceleration

So for minimum radius you want minimum velocity and
maximum accleration. Got that?

IIRC the airbus is FBW-limited to 60 degrees of bank, so in
a level, co-ordinated turn you're going to be at +2G's.

Minimum velocity at +2G's at Clmax is going to be:

sqrt(2) x Vs

So for a minimum radius turn, you're going to be at +2G's
and at the stalling AOA at 1.4 times your straight and level
stall speed at that weight and configuration (flaps, etc).

Most people don't want to fly that slow, that low. You were
probably flying too fast, not pulling enough G, and nowhere
near a high enough AOA.

[Big Pistons Forever]

On a recent sim eval some of the pilots got an engine fire at V1, the drill was complete with all the ECAM actions completed and the fire was still not out.

The weather was VFR and my question is that should the crew quickly turn around and reprogram the FMS and configure to land in a tailwind or fly a tight circuit pattern to rejoin and fly relatively more stable approach?

I understand if your airplane is burning up you want to get on the ground as quickly as possible but we tried the quick turn around scenario in the sim and it was quite challenging to get it turned around expeditiously. (This particular A320 has a tailwind limitation of 10knots)

Check Captain was taking all of this into consideration.

Appreciate your thoughts.

So what if the tailwind limitation is 10 knots, the airplane is on fire. It would seem to me the fastest way to get on the ground is to do a dumbell turn either visually or just fly the departure backwards on the FMS until visual and take the downwind landing.

[TopperHarley]

I see you went through with your decision to get the self-sponsored a320 type training. I hope it works out to be a good investment for you.

If the fire doesn't go out, you need to land ASAP. If the fire goes out after completing the ECAMs, stick to the procedures and get vectors. Complete the QRH procedures and you should have no problem landing safely.

Trying to do a 360 turn after takeoff in an airbus and landing safely on the runway you just took-off from would not be easy.

[Big Pistons Forever]

The good news is virtually all real world engine fires go out as soon as the engine is shut down. The probability of an engine remaining on fire after it has been shut down and the fire suppression system activated, is very low. The bad news is an uncontrolled fire is a desperate emergency. You will likely have no way of knowing how long the aircraft will remain controllable and so getting the aircraft back on the ground ASAP has to be the priority even if it involves doing things that would in other circumstances be extremely reckless.

The Swiss Air crash of Halifax was a good example. The crew wasted valuable time dumping fuel instead of pointing the aircraft at the nearest runway.

[FlyGy]

Trying to do a 360 turn after takeoff in an airbus and landing safely on the runway you just took-off from would not be easy.

Especially because you'd end up facing the same direction and right back where you started your turn.

[delay256]

All the ECAM Actions were complete but there was no time to get to the QRH (in the U turn scenario) . I would think programming the downwind runway in the Secondary Flight Plan (unusual) and mention this during the take off briefing might be a good idea as I can get the PNF to activate the secondary which would give me a better picture on the ND, enable VDEV and Groundspeed Mini.

[ScudRunner]

The weather was VFR and my question is that should the crew quickly turn around and reprogram the FMS and configure to land in a tailwind or fly a tight circuit pattern to rejoin and fly relatively more stable approach?

OK never flown the A320 but this part of the comment kind of stood out to me "reprogram the FMS". What about disconnect and fly
the plane. Kind of brings me to a video I recently watch about "Children of the Magenta" I may be young(ish) however mostly flown olde school jets but typically when shit hits the fan I subscribe to this school of thought. http://youtu.be/h3kREPMzMLk

Take care of business. Join the down wind and land, no need to create another self induce emergency by cranking around messing up ATC's chi diverting aircraft for your emergency. Then you get yourself into a corner behind the plane, chances are your heavy and with a blown jug your carrying a few extra knots on your ref not to mention perhaps a flap limited approach under single engine condition combined with a ten knot tailwind now your looking at the end of the runway coming up fast. All that being said I can build a few scenarios to warrant a 180 back and land.............................

I always like giving people the "Kobayashi Maru" scenario just to see what happens, yup I've seen guys let go of the control turn around and say "that's not fair". Some look for a field and gimli glide it in perfectly, trust me the grin on their face after that is worth it for me known just the fact this guys never going to quit flying the plane.

anyway before I digress further, that's just my opinion I could be wrong.

[Beefitarian]

Trying to do a 360 turn after takeoff in an airbus and landing safely on the runway you just took-off from would not be easy.

Especially because you'd end up facing the same direction and right back where you started your turn.

True but this is not a light single here. The turning radius is going to be large. You may have completed a nice round circuit.

[Colonel Sanders]

Speaking of engine failures in large airplanes, in 1988 a friend
of mine had a bad day in a 737. Lost both engines in bad wx.

Lucky for his pax, he is a superb airshow pilot - an amazing
stick - and put it down, undamaged, on a levee. No one was
hurt, and Boeing flew it out, and it went back into service.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TACA_Flight_110

Was a double flameout "fair"? You should hear what he has
to say about his prissy FO's these days.

One thing I am sure no one here will notice: in 1988, Carlos
(the PIC) was 29 years old. Many people here will harumph
and say that no 29 year old should be PIC of a 737. But he
was obviously qualified to be - he passed the ultimate, real-world
test, didn't he?

Another thing you won't notice: 'way back in 1988, Carlos had
over 13,000 hours in the air, with over 4,000 hours on type. He
just loves to fly. He's always flying. Even if he has only one eye -
another story that I'm sure you will never know of.

People ignore what I say because they think I'm stupid, but if you
want to be good:

1) start young
2) fly more than anyone else

[FlyGy]

Trying to do a 360 turn after takeoff in an airbus and landing safely on the runway you just took-off from would not be easy.

Especially because you'd end up facing the same direction and right back where you started your turn.

True but this is not a light single here. The turning radius is going to be large. You may have completed a nice round circuit.

I agree, but why then would Topper say that it would not be easy? I ask out of ignorance, because I have never flown a jet. I'm just going with the assumption that he meant to type 180, but then he wouldn't be landing on the runway he just took off from, he'd be landing on the opposite one.

I'm so confused.

[Gannet167]

It's a good discussion. If the weather is VMC, a common takeoff briefing where I work is to say "for an emergency, we'll recover visually to runway __" sometimes with a mention of weight and landing distance req'd if it's a factor.

So, in your scenario, it would have been clear to both pilots that we'll climb up to something like circuit altitude, PNF will run the checklist, PF will declare mayday, turn downwind and get ready to land. If it's an engine failure etc I would run the whole checklist. There's a lot of crap to tidy up before landing and a bunch of math to do.

However, if I'm on fire and it's not going out, the PNF can run the checklist for a while while PF gets in a good position to land, but eventually, around when we're looking down final to a good runway, complete or not the checklist gets closed and he/she can help me focus on putting the plane down safely and making sure the rest of the crew knows what to do.

in VMC, I would never worry about programming anything in the FMS. In IMC, I'd probably get a vector to pickup the ILS, that's about it. What does the FMS do for you that you can't do yourself using heading mode at this point? Any benefit from it has to be weighed against the time spent programming. If it's something simple like the gear wont come up and there's no immediate risk to safety (like a fire) then I probably would take the time to do the approach with the FMS just to keep everything standard and gain a little extra SA from having a map on the MFD or whatever your kit does for you. But in a fire scenario, I'd say the priority of duties pushes the FMS so far down on the list of important things to do, that I'd forget it. Make sure you have gear and flaps, brief up what happens once we come to a stop so the passengers know which door to run out of and which one not to.

[flyincanuck]

Fly a circuit. Not a long one. But give yourself enough time to fly a safe approach.

You have a self-contained engine on your wing. Think about that. They are designed to shear off.

Now if we were in something like an L1011 or 727, the stakes change.

I would be very concerned with a wheel well or cabin fire - and would subsequently do everything possible to land as soon as possible.

[notpaying]

Speaking of engine failures in large airplanes, in 1988 a friend
of mine had a bad day in a 737. Lost both engines in bad wx.

Lucky for his pax, he is a superb airshow pilot - an amazing
stick - and put it down, undamaged, on a levee. No one was
hurt, and Boeing flew it out, and it went back into service.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TACA_Flight_110

Was a double flameout "fair"? You should hear what he has
to say about his prissy FO's these days.

One thing I am sure no one here will notice: in 1988, Carlos
(the PIC) was 29 years old. Many people here will harumph
and say that no 29 year old should be PIC of a 737. But he
was obviously qualified to be - he passed the ultimate, real-world
test, didn't he?

Another thing you won't notice: 'way back in 1988, Carlos had
over 13,000 hours in the air, with over 4,000 hours on type. He
just loves to fly. He's always flying. Even if he has only one eye -
another story that I'm sure you will never know of.

People ignore what I say because they think I'm stupid, but if you
want to be good:

1) start young
2) fly more than anyone else

Let youtube tell the story

[TTJJ]

This is a good thread and is probably the most misunderstood emergency by initial pilots.

A simple fire alarm in a pylon mounted jet engine on the wing should be somewhat of a non-event. If the fire was not a result of an uncontained failure (e.g. KABOOM…) resulting in possible structural damage from shrapnel or vibration, there is really no need to rush. There is especially no need to rush and shut the engine down if it happens on takeoff. The engine is after all still developing power and getting you away from the ground and up to speed.

In what may seem like a glib statement, a jet engine is always "on fire". It is outside the aircraft and if it is on a pylon, it is even off the wing. As stated earlier, if things get hot enough to potentially threaten the aircraft the engine mounting bolts on the pylon are designed to fail causing the engine to fall away without damaging the airfoil. It may be a bit drastic, but it is a definitive solution to a fire problem.

Once you complete the engine fire drills you have already closed the fuel valve, closed the hydraulic fire shut off valve, closed the engine bleed valve, closed the pack flow control valve, cut the FADEC power and engine driven generator. There is nothing left to turn or burn. http://www.smartcockpit.com/pdf/plane/a ... tems/0030/

You “may” still have a fire warning if one of the fire detection loops has gone nuts. Your simulator instructor will probable leave the fire light on just to stress you out more for the emergency return and to set up an emergency evacuation scenario.

As a fire is one of the few things that we are naturally afraid of, it is quite disconcerting to have that red light in your face. However, the aircraft is still flying. It was designed to fly with an engine on fire and there is no need to unduely rush things to get the aircraft on the ground.

I am not advocating going on a sightseeing tour with the fire warning on, nor programming the FMS for a full procedure IFR approach while VFR, but:

1) You will already be distracted with the warning
2) You will be coming in at a higher speed due to a single engine flap setting and will have a very different approach picture in your windshield due to this,
3) You will float WAY more than normal after you flare (And let’s face it; landing with reduced flaps is just not practiced in the aircraft anymore.)
4) You will be thinking about evacuating the PAX, coordinating with the cabin crew etc.
5) The cabin crew need time to prepare the cabin for an emergency landing.
6) Although no-one will ever admit it, early in your career you will be constantly second-guessing yourself during the approach as to whether you have done everything that needs to be done

All this takes away from you concentrating on making a safe landing. As such, I maintain that there is normally no reason for an immediate 180 degree return to the runway.

If possible do your 3 "C"s or equivalent. Advise (Control (ATC), Crew (cabin crew) and Company). Each has their own Emergency SOPs to complete.

Take your time, sort things out, set yourself up and then do a normal VFR circuit.

There is not much sense in possibly breaking a perfectly good aircraft for a non-problem out on the wing.

Now if the fire is in a fuselage engine, a tail engine, an engine that is inside a wing or the nightmare scenario of being in the cabin and refuses to go out, then things are very different.

I have spent half my career in 3 engine jet aircraft and most of the other half on 2 engine jets. Pylon engine fires on the wing should be no big deal.

The hardest part of dealing with any emergency (but especially a fire) is for you to shut down YOUR fear and calmly put the aircraft safely on the ground.

Congratulations on going after your dream and getting your rating on the aircraft.

[Gannet167]

Very well said.

First, fly the plane. Then do everything else as required.

[delay256]

@TTJJ

Thanks for the input and the kind comments. I will keep all of this in mind during the next sim eval in 6 months. The purpose of the exercise was to check your decision making process and how well you can use the other crew member in a difficult situation.

[Panama Jack]

Good thread, and It looks like the last few posters have written some words of common sense, here.

Count me in as one of those who would likely fly the circuit and do a stabilized approach.

Somebody mentioned Swissair and Peggy's Cove in the same sentence. An airframe fire is NOT the same as an engine fire. With an uncontained airframe fire the priority really is to get it on the ground as soon as possible even if it means off-airport. It could even mean ditching.

I wouldn't go that drastically on a modern Part 25 Transport Aircraft. As a few posters have mentioned, while an unextinguishable engine fire is serious business, the design of the mounts is that the engine falls off before your wing burns off. If you are a really good stick, try to plan your flightpath so that it ends up in someone's swimming pool.

Runway Excursions are a major problem and seious killers now adays, and they are often preceded by an unstabilized approach. So, activate Secondary Flight Plan (which hopefully is your immediate return), Activate Approach Phase, put the bird on, go Flaps 1 when you hit the Green Dot, disengage the AP when your time has elapsed past the threshold, configure in sequence and be stabilized by 500'. Be prepared to evacuate the cabin once your parking brake is set. Despite the stress and the unusual situation, try to keep things as close to what you are used to (SOP's) and don't try to be a hero.

Better than having the airport fire crews having to look for you 1000' in the mud past the runway end.

[Eric Janson]

On a recent sim eval some of the pilots got an engine fire at V1, the drill was complete with all the ECAM actions completed and the fire was still not out.

The weather was VFR and my question is that should the crew quickly turn around and reprogram the FMS and configure to land in a tailwind or fly a tight circuit pattern to rejoin and fly relatively more stable approach?

I understand if your airplane is burning up you want to get on the ground as quickly as possible but we tried the quick turn around scenario in the sim and it was quite challenging to get it turned around expeditiously. (This particular A320 has a tailwind limitation of 10knots)

Check Captain was taking all of this into consideration.

Appreciate your thoughts.

There is a very nice chart in PRO-ABN-10 Operating techniques called Immediate VMC landing following Eng failure on take-off.

It provides a balance between getting all the checks done and getting the aircraft on the ground without excessive delay on the departure runway.

Reprogramming the FMGC can be done quite quickly. If it isn't done navaids require manual tuning on the RADNAV page and you will need to fly selected speed as Vapp will be incorrect and you will not have GS Mini functions. Having an immediate return in the secondary flightplan is a good option.

[TopperHarley]

OK never flown the A320 but this part of the comment kind of stood out to me "reprogram the FMS". What about disconnect and fly
the plane. Kind of brings me to a video I recently watch about "Children of the Magenta" I may be young(ish) however mostly flown olde school jets but typically when shit hits the fan I subscribe to this school of thought. http://youtu.be/h3kREPMzMLk

You re-program the FMS for the reasons Eric stated above (re: auto-tuning of nav aids). It only takes a few finger pushes on the MCDU!

[Redneck_pilot86]

Why do we need to reprogram navaids? The scenario was in VFR. Fly a circuit, set up as close to normal an approach as you can, and land the thing.

[Panama Jack]

Lots of comments from guys who evidently don't know modern FBW Airbuses.

Assuming the secondary flight plan was programmed for an immediate return to a runway served by an ILS, there is no need to tune any radios. There are litterally 3 button presses to make (one to activate the secondary flight plan, another to confirm, and one to activate approach phase).

[Eric Janson]

Why do we need to reprogram navaids? The scenario was in VFR. Fly a circuit, set up as close to normal an approach as you can, and land the thing.

As Panama Jack says a lot of you don't seem to know anything about airbus FBW aircraft.

These are extremely complex machines where the different systems are integrated. This means that it has to be flown they way the manufacturer says. If you try to deviate from this you may encounter some unexpected surprises.

Abnormal operation can be very complex because of this especially a dual hydraulic failure or the emergency electrical configuration.

In the scenario listed above the last thing you want to do is a go-around. By not following the manufacturers procedures you are making things even more difficult and you are making things worse imho.

The FMGC can be programmed within 30 seconds by anyone who is competent - then the approach can be flown like any other. There is no reason not to do this.

[Panama Jack]

Eric Janson's point about the Dual Hydraulic Failure and the Emergency Electrical Configuration are correct about these complex procedures. But how about a more, seemingly mundane one.

When I did my initial for the A320 I was told by my partner "they will probably give you a Dual Radar Altimeter Fault." Evidently I didn't fully understand the systems and the consequences, because I thought to myself, "so what?"

Well. . . never had I have imagined that such a trivial system (on other aircraft types) could have such a dramatic effect on the aircraft Flight Control Laws, including the need to calculate a landing distance factor. Airbus FBW guys know what I mean, while other Transport Category pilot types will likely still be puzzled.

In comparison, a simple engine failure or even an unextinguishable engine fire are easy to handle . . . but you still need to follow the procedure to make sure you don't make it go all pearshaped. There isn't all that latitude for heroics or cowboy techniques unless you really know what you are doing (and I don't mean the 95% of us who consider ourselves to be "above average" pilots).

P.S. and yeah, Sully is a good pilot but he also was really lucky.

[delay256]

@panama jack

Yes Dual Rad Alt Fault is a nasty one as you are in Direct Law as soon as you get the gear down. I am still getting use to the bird, its a useful little tool that I was rather uncomfortable with during the initial part of the training.

Off topic, Sully forgot the ditching switch (still an amazing overall job given the situation) would this have made any difference?