JetBlue Hydraulic Failure at LAS

Just did some digging in the procedures for another Airbus Operator.

With a Dual Hydraulic Failure on any combination of systems, the FIRST item is LAND ASAP.

Then the procedure goes through the processes and has a decision tree if you get one system back on. But....the first item is to land ASAP.

Also in this other airlines performance charts, looks like they could have landed in LAS even with no flaps and spoilers on the long runway.

Once again wasn't there but some things aren't adding up.
 
As a side note, I'm a little surprised that the 'bus has no way to dump fuel. Is this the case with all modern liners?
 
SteveCostello said:
As a side note, I'm a little surprised that the 'bus has no way to dump fuel. Is this the case with all modern liners?
Click to expand...

I don't believe you need to be able to dump fuel unless landing overweight will break the aircraft.

The plane I fly can't dump fuel.
 
Seggy said:
First, I am going to say I wasn't there AND the Hydraulic and Electrical Failures/Problems are the hardest to properly troubleshoot on the Airbus (see UAL in MSY earlier this year)

Secondly, here is why it doesn't add up...

-If there is a failure of BOTH Green and Yellow Systems, then the Flaps, Slats, Thrust Reversers then yes you are in a world of hurt. We did that in the SIM going into SKBO (Bogata) and myself and my sim partner ran off the end of the runway as well as 99.99999% of the trainees. However, that was in an airfield of 8000+ feet. I betchya if you ran the numbers for say an airport such as LAS, a dual hydraulic failure you would have a comfortable enough margin to land rather than risk a third failure of the Blue System (which would have been REALLY bad). Even if LAS wouldn't have worked, I betcha LAX would have...

.... with that....

-If I read the article correctly, they did restore one system. With the PTU a restoration of one system would power the other system so everything SHOULD have been working ok. If your flaps, spoilers, brakes, reversers are working OK, then an overweight landing isn't a big deal as...

-We have a procedure to do an overweight landing. During training at my place the instructors and check airman were adament that it is not a big deal to land overweight rather than risk more issues compounding in the air. The airplane is so automated the mechanics can very easily tell if any stresses were encountered during the landing and can be a very quick sign off. I have less than 100 hours in the plane, but the Captains I have flown with everytime have included in the briefings that if we need to land overweight we will rather than risk the problem compounding itself. If your plane is broken anyway, get it on the ground ASAP to get it fixed rather than worry about an additional inspection!

Maybe Cruise and PeanuckleCRJ can correct me if I am wrong on the info, I am new to the plane, but as I said somethings here don't add up.
Click to expand...


Something doesn't seem to be adding up here. That said, I wasn't there and will refrain from sidelining the crew's actions. I'd like to get more info before making an assessment on the crew's decision to burn down fuel for hours before landing with such a significant systems failure.

But like Seggy said....something doesn't seem right. There must be more to the story.
 
Land as soon as possible. Possible being the key word. Losing the Green and Yellow systems adds 1.8-2.0 times more for landing distances. Very hot day in LAS could have been a deciding factor. Would like to know why 3 hours of circling? I was not there so I need more info just like everyone. But we do have some guys here at the Blue factory that makes me wonder how they passed their interview.
 
I saw that distance factor and was thinking of that. Ran the numbers last night and even being heavy looks like it would have worked using 25R.

Like we have said we weren't there :-)
 
Seggy said:
Just did some digging in the procedures for another Airbus Operator.

With a Dual Hydraulic Failure on any combination of systems, the FIRST item is LAND ASAP.

Then the procedure goes through the processes and has a decision tree if you get one system back on. But....the first item is to land ASAP.

Also in this other airlines performance charts, looks like they could have landed in LAS even with no flaps and spoilers on the long runway.

Once again wasn't there but some things aren't adding up.
Click to expand...

Some are very against doing overweight landings... perhaps this was the case. If it was , I certainly don't agree with it.


The screeching noise was certainly the PTU and the bumps had nothing to do with the malfunction... just a hot freaking day in LAS.

I'll be interested to see more data as it comes out.
 
SteveCostello said:
As a side note, I'm a little surprised that the 'bus has no way to dump fuel. Is this the case with all modern liners?
Click to expand...

I am not an expert of part 25 but as far as I know the requirement to be able to dump fuel exists in order for airplanes to meet single engine climb performance during a single-engine go-around.

It has nothing to do with actually touching down too heavily.

After all, the airplane is allowed to taxi around thousand and thousands and thousands of pounds above maximum landing weight -- it is simply the force exerted on the thing at the moment of touchdown that must be reduced.
 
I honestly can't name a narrowbody that can dump fuel. DC-8, maybe the 727? Older stuff perhaps. :)
 
There is a FAR that out outlines when an aircraft have to have a fuel dump. From my limited research heres the FAR and short paragraph explaining it.

"Longer-range twin jets such as the Boeing 767 and the Airbus A300, A310, and A330 may or may not have fuel dump systems, depending upon how the aircraft was ordered, since on some aircraft they are a customer option. Three- and four-engine jets like the Lockheed L-1011, McDonnell Douglas DC-10 / MD-11, Boeing 747 and Airbus A340 usually have difficulty meeting the requirements of FAR 25.119 near maximum structural takeoff weight, so most of those have jettison systems. A Boeing 757 has no fuel dump capability as its maximum landing weight is similar to the maximum take-off weight."
 
Seggy said:
I saw that distance factor and was thinking of that. Ran the numbers last night and even being heavy looks like it would have worked using 25R.

Like we have said we weren't there :-)
Click to expand...
I'm going to lay odds that Jblu HQ didn't want them going from las to JFK on a standby hyd. System. There are places along that route that just don't have many good options if they had to land. ( sure safe places to land, but no close air service or MX for the plane)

If its a company rtb order, I'm almost positive they would also tell them not to land over weight.
 
TUCKnTRUCK said:
If its a company rtb order, I'm almost positive they would also tell them not to land over weight.
Click to expand...

That decision rest solely with the Captain of the flight and he/she is the final authority during an emergency...period! The company doesn't "order" him/her to do anything..especially during an emergency. They are there to assist the crew any way possible and may offer "suggestions" with the help of dispatch, emergency personal and the maintenance dept.
 
A300Capt said:
That decision rest solely with the Captain of the flight and he/she is the final authority during an emergency...period! The company doesn't "order" him/her to do anything..especially during an emergency. They are there to assist the crew any way possible and may offer "suggestions" with the help of dispatch, emergency personal and the maintenance dept.
Click to expand...


I meant, they had the problem, ran the checks an advised company. They may have simply said please don't take it across the country.

I've had problems before where I "could" have continued, but they didn't want us to continue, so we returned.

If it really was a full blown emergency, I doubt they would have held for 3 hours, unless they assumed that they wouldn't have brakes, lift dump or flaps... Or something else.
 
A300Capt said:
That decision rest solely with the Captain of the flight and he/she is the final authority during an emergency...period! The company doesn't "order" him/her to do anything..especially during an emergency. They are there to assist the crew any way possible and may offer "suggestions" with the help of dispatch, emergency personal and the maintenance dept.
Click to expand...

Precisely.

I know of a situation where a plane was departing the east coast for Europe and there was a mechanical abnormality. They go into holding and the procedure concluded with landing at the nearest suitable airport. Maintenance suggested they bring the plane back to NY however they were just north of Boston. They overflew BOS to get the plane back to NY and everyone was happy.

Except for the FAA.

Flight control pointed at Maintenance and said "we didn't tell him that!", Maintenance said, "Hey, we're not flight control, we suggested, but the captain was the ultimate authority" and guess who got left holding the bag.

Yup, the pilots.

How about a little unscheduled, unpaid vacation for trying to be a "good guy".

That fourth stripe doesn't simply mean you get the first leg and the bigger paycheck, there are some responsibilities.
 
TUCKnTRUCK said:
I meant, they had the problem, ran the checks an advised company. They may have simply said please don't take it across the country.

I've had problems before where I "could" have continued, but they didn't want us to continue, so we returned.

If it really was a full blown emergency, I doubt they would have held for 3 hours, unless they assumed that they wouldn't have brakes, lift dump or flaps... Or something else.
Click to expand...

That's the way I read it. If it's not a "Land at the nearest suitable airport" emergency, I've gotten in contact with the company and asked "So, where do ya want the plane? Ees busted!" If the company asks that you air return instead of press on across the country or the pond, well, it's their airplane and their operation. Obviously, the PIC is responsible for doing what he/she feels is necessary if that request is unsafe or illegal for any reason.
 
A300Capt said:
That decision rest solely with the Captain of the flight and he/she is the final authority during an emergency...period! The company doesn't "order" him/her to do anything..especially during an emergency. They are there to assist the crew any way possible and may offer "suggestions" with the help of dispatch, emergency personal and the maintenance dept.
Click to expand...

True, however that won't stop you from being invited in to carpet dance after the fact.

At my airline I've heard of a captain being told "they are not worthy of holding an ATP" because they diverted to an airport with a longer runway than the destination because the flaps failed at zero.

I screwed up a commute into JFK for Derg with a gear emergency when the nose gear wouldn't come down. After we did the emergency extend we did a low approach (autopilot on, intercept the LOC at 1,500ft at 180 kts, flaps 20) to make sure everything was down and straight. The captain was told that we weren't supposed to do that because "you guys aren't test pilots."

Not that it should rank high on the "importance meter" when it comes to making decisions during an emergency, but that doesn't mean that the company won't try to be a pain in the ass afterwards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top