JetBlue A320 dual hydraulic failure.

[Just a civilian pilot]

This one caught my attention. It’s from the Aviation Herald.

As an A320 pilot, it’s too coincidental to lose both, the Green, and Yellow hydraulic system ( separate, they do not share same fluid ).

Only way ( unless bad luck ) that can realistically happen is if the crew takes too long to turn off the PTU ( power transfer unit ) which would then cause the other , separate systems, to overheat.

If they did a go around with both hydraulics out, that’s a huge increase in workload.

Incident: Jetblue A321 near Raleigh/Durham on May 28th 2024, dual hydraulic failure

By Simon Hradecky, created Wednesday, May 29th 2024 18:49Z, last updated Wednesday, May 29th 2024 20:34Z A Jetblue Airbus A321-200, registration N956JT performing flight B6-369 from Boston,MA to Fort Lauderdale,FL (USA) with 83 people on board, was enroute at FL360 about 100nm east of Raleigh/Durham,NC (USA) when the crew decided to divert to Raleigh/Durham reporting hydraulic problems. The crew performed an approach to Raleigh's runway 23L but needed to go around, then entered a hold. The crew reported they had lost green and yellow hydraulic systems and needed to work out whether they had sufficient runway length for a flaps up landing. The aircraft landed on runway 23L at a higher than normal speed (about 180 knots over ground) about 70 minutes after leaving FL360. A replacement A321-200N registration N2044J reached Fort Lauderdale with a delay of about 6.5 hours. The occurrence aircraft is still on the ground in Raleigh about 15.5 hours after landing. The FAA reported: "jetBlue Airways Flight 369 landed safely at Raleigh-Durham International Airport around 11:20 p.m. local time on Tuesday, May 28, after the crew reported a possible hydraulic issue. Passengers deplaned on the runway and were bused to the terminal. The Airbus A321 departed from Boston Logan International Airport and was headed to Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport. The FAA will investigate."​

 

[Astro14]

Not much left working when you’re down to just the blue hydraulics! Emergency gear extension, alternate flap extension, reduced flight controls, no nose wheel steering, alternate brakes (or is it just accumulator?) - that about right? It’s been a while, but loss of green and yellow is a serious problem.

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

Not much left working when you’re down to just the blue hydraulics! Emergency gear extension, alternate flap extension, reduced flight controls, no nose wheel steering, alternate brakes (or is it just accumulator?) - that about right? It’s been a while, but loss of green and yellow is a serious problem.

Just accumulator ( 7 applications ) with loss of anti skid.

 

[sloinker]

I remember the good old days. 727's with cigarette smoke filled cabins, mini skirted stewardesses. Cheap drinks, meals.......these newfangled glass cockpits with pilots that never landed on an aircraft carrier got me running scared! j/k
Glad to see the plane landed safely.

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

I remember the good old days. 727's with cigarette smoke filled cabins, mini skirted stewardesses. Cheap drinks, meals.......these newfangled glass cockpits with pilots that never landed on an aircraft carrier got me running scared! j/k
Glad to see the plane landed safely.

Somehow I managed to fly ( FO ) the B727, rack up around 26,000 hours total time all aircraft without an accident despite never landing on carriers.

I must have been lucky I guess

 

[oil pan 4]

Maximum pucker factor.

 

[Bill7]

This one caught my attention. It’s from the Aviation Herald.

As an A320 pilot, it’s too coincidental to lose both, the Green, and Yellow hydraulic system ( separate, they do not share same fluid ).

Only way ( unless bad luck ) that can realistically happen is if the crew takes too long to turn off the PTU ( power transfer unit ) which would then cause the other , separate systems, to overheat.

If they did a go around with both hydraulics out, that’s a huge increase in workload.

Incident: Jetblue A321 near Raleigh/Durham on May 28th 2024, dual hydraulic failure

By Simon Hradecky, created Wednesday, May 29th 2024 18:49Z, last updated Wednesday, May 29th 2024 20:34Z A Jetblue Airbus A321-200, registration N956JT performing flight B6-369 from Boston,MA to Fort Lauderdale,FL (USA) with 83 people on board, was enroute at FL360 about 100nm east of Raleigh/Durham,NC (USA) when the crew decided to divert to Raleigh/Durham reporting hydraulic problems. The crew performed an approach to Raleigh's runway 23L but needed to go around, then entered a hold. The crew reported they had lost green and yellow hydraulic systems and needed to work out whether they had sufficient runway length for a flaps up landing. The aircraft landed on runway 23L at a higher than normal speed (about 180 knots over ground) about 70 minutes after leaving FL360. A replacement A321-200N registration N2044J reached Fort Lauderdale with a delay of about 6.5 hours. The occurrence aircraft is still on the ground in Raleigh about 15.5 hours after landing. The FAA reported: "jetBlue Airways Flight 369 landed safely at Raleigh-Durham International Airport around 11:20 p.m. local time on Tuesday, May 28, after the crew reported a possible hydraulic issue. Passengers deplaned on the runway and were bused to the terminal. The Airbus A321 departed from Boston Logan International Airport and was headed to Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport. The FAA will investigate."​

That is serious. Is it too early to know whether it's a maintenance issue (Jetblue's fault), or Airbus' fault with a design or manufacturing flaw.

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

That is serious. Is it too early to know whether it's a maintenance issue (Jetblue's fault), or Airbus' fault with a design or manufacturing flaw.

We never know the truth until the facts come out in an official report but since we will never see the report ( not a high profile incident, or accident ) , it’s just informed speculation on my part.

The Aviation Herald is a very reputable site and they are careful what they post.

So, to me, knowing the A320, knowing what usually causes a dual G + Y hydraulic failure, I am sticking to my educated guess what happened until we ever see a report out that proves otherwise ( which I doubt we will see ). If I am wrong, I will update what I said.

Last dual Hydraulic failure on the A320 I am aware of, ironically , was on a JetBlue A320 taking off from Las Vegas ( wasn’t their fault …but Airbus modified things ).

You only have two minutes to turn off the PTU before it overheats the other system but it’s not mentioned anywhere that it can happen that fast ( but Airbus tells pilots to turn it off ).

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

Here is report on the last dual Hydraulic failure I am aware of. It occurred in 2012, taking off from Las Vegas.

Airbus modified the PTU since then to ensure it automatically turns off only after take off with a green or yellow failure when below 1500 to avoid it overheating the other system ( still have to manually turn it off it have a single hydraulics failure above 1500 ) given the ECAM inhibits the caution ( to avoid distractions….certain cautions ) on take off above 80 knots, until 1500.

Airbus realized losing a single hydraulic system is o.k to inhibit but if the crew are not aware until above 1500, the PTU will overheat the other system and cause a dual hydraulic failure. Because they do not feel losing a single hydraulic system is worth distracting the pilots below 1500 , Airbus makes sure the PTU turns off if it happens.

Incident: Jetblue A320 at Las Vegas on Jun 17th 2012, two hydraulic systems failed

By Simon Hradecky, created Tuesday, Jun 19th 2012 16:52Z, last updated Friday, Mar 27th 2015 00:31Z A Jetblue Airbus A320-200, registration N552JB performing flight B6-194 from Las Vegas,NV to New York JFK,NY (USA) with 149 passengers and 5 crew, was climbing out of Las Vegas' runway 25R when the crew levelled off at 13,000 feet reporting multiple hydraulic problems, a few minutes later the crew declared emergency reporting they had lost two hydraulic systems. They needed to burn off fuel and entered a holding at 12,000 feet for about 3 hours and landed safely on runway 25R about 3:30 hours after departure and stopped on the runway. The runway was closed for about 30 minutes until the aircraft was towed off the runway. A replacement Airbus A320-200 reached New York with a delay of 8 hours. The airline reported the yellow hydraulic system had been lost. The Aviation Herald however learned on Jun 20th that the green hydraulic system had been lost followed by an overheat indication of the yellow hydraulic system prompting the crew to report the failure of two hydraulic systems. The crew actioned the relevant checklists and were able to recover the yellow hydraulic system. On Oct 4th 2012 the NTSB reported the aircraft suffered a dual hydraulic system failure after departure from Las Vegas. The crew actioned the relevant checklists and was able to restore one of the failed systems, burned off fuel and returned to Las Vegas for a safe landing. The aircraft was towed to the gate. There were no injuries, the aircraft sustained minor damage to the hydraulic system. An investigation is ongoing. On Mar 26th 2015 the NTSB released their final report concluding the probable cause of the incident was: the failure of the right main landing gear door retraction flexible hydraulic line in the Green hydraulic system, which led to prolonged operation of the power transfer unit and subsequent overheating and loss of pressure in the Yellow hydraulic system, resulting in the airplane's operation with only one hydraulic system. Contributing to the incident was the lack of incorporation of aircraft manufacturer service bulletins that describe procedures for aircraft modifications intended to prevent this occurrence. The NTSB reported the aircraft had departed under minimum equipment list requirements with one flap computer inoperative. During gear retraction the green hydraulic system lost pressure, the flight warning computer detected a flight control flap system fault, 2 minutes later a yellow hydraulic reservoir overheat indication activated, the indications however were inhibited until the aircraft climbed through 1500 feet AGL. The NTSB wrote: "The crew subsequently experienced a period of high workload as they received multiple aural and visual warnings on the flight deck." The captain handed control to the first officer and began to work the related checklists which required to shut down the green and yellow engine driven pumps and the power transfer unit (PTU). This however produced the loss of yellow hydraulic pressure, the reversion to Alternate Law and the disconnection of autopilot and autothrust. The crew attempted to raise the flaps from 1 to 0 degrees, however, due to the loss of green hydraulic system and the deactivated flaps computer the flaps were inoperative. With only the blue hydraulic system remaining available the crew coordinated with ATC to enter a hold to work the related checklists, communicate with engineering and dispatch and compute landing distance. While in the hold the captain noticed that the yellow hydraulic system no longer indicated overheat and followed the checklists to restore the yellow hydraulic system and managed to bring the yellow hydraulic system online again 36 minutes after departure. The crew had already determined they needed 11,000 feet of runway for landing with two hydraulic systems inoperative, with the recovery of the yellow system they now needed 8,500 feet only. With the loss of the green hydraulic system there was no possibility to retract the landing gear once it was extended, even in case of a go around, there was no nose wheel steering available and there was need for landing at a higher than normal speed. The crew therefore decided to remain in the hold to burn off fuel until being below maximum landing weight and landed safely at a higher speed than normal about 3.5 hours after departure. The aircraft was towed off the runway. A post flight examination found a leak in the flexible green hydraulic line at the right main gear door retraction mechanism, the line showed a kink and a collapsed side wall.​

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

https://safetyfirst.airbus.com/app/themes/mh_newsdesk/documents/archives/a320-dual-hydraulic-loss.pdf

 

[Cujet]

It is interesting how the failure of one simple part can cause other problems, often due to inadequate engineering. In TAA (technically advanced aircraft) there may be a number of other faults and disabled or altered systems, all driven by software. In much the same way as the gear handle is prevented from being placed in the up position while on the ground by the software now, instead of directly by a WOW (weight on wheels) switch.

In any case, the FAA is very concerned about a crew's inability to accurately troubleshoot a problem when presented by a series of seemingly unrelated problems.

 

[sloinker]

Somehow I managed to fly ( FO ) the B727, rack up around 26,000 hours total time all aircraft without an accident despite never landing on carriers.

I must have been lucky I guess

I imagine most pilots nowadays go to some type of flight school and progressively work their way up to the larger aircraft. There is nothing wrong with this approach but If I actually got to choose my pilots and FO's. Folks that landed on carriers get my vote. A close second would be USAF pilots. I've watched a number of the air crash documentaries and it seems that many pilots use almost pure automation while flying. This works well as long as the automation is functional. Cascading events leading to incidents is a common theme when stick and rudder flying is needed. I know sometimes the airplane itself and how it is designed along with software can be an issue. I am not a pilot, I have done my share as a passenger though. Sad to say I actually prefer the Airbus as a passenger. I haven't flown in almost a decade. If I never fly again it won't make me shed a tear.

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

I imagine most pilots nowadays go to some type of flight school and progressively work their way up to the larger aircraft. There is nothing wrong with this approach but If I actually got to choose my pilots and FO's. Folks that landed on carriers get my vote. A close second would be USAF pilots. I've watched a number of the air crash documentaries and it seems that many pilots use almost pure automation while flying. This works well as long as the automation is functional. Cascading events leading to incidents is a common theme when stick and rudder flying is needed. I know sometimes the airplane itself and how it is designed along with software can be an issue. I am not a pilot, I have done my share as a passenger though. Sad to say I actually prefer the Airbus as a passenger. I haven't flown in almost a decade. If I never fly again it won't make me shed a tear.

Pilots have always had to go to some type of flight school and progressively work their way up to larger aircraft, nothing new there.

Don’t tell me you think Airbus is safer than Boeing?

You strike me as a nervous flyer with all due respect.

 

[Cujet]

Don’t tell me you think Airbus is safer than Boeing?

Your statement led me to look up some data. Since there have been no recent fatal accidents, the NTSB data shows the following info. Sadly, my very favorite company, Boeing, is experiencing more reportable incidents per departure.

Of course, there are the MD aircraft rolled into Boeing, that may skew the numbers. Far more useful would be by make and model.

 

[4WD]

Pilots have always had to go to some type of flight school and progressively work their way up to larger aircraft, nothing new there.

Don’t tell me you think Airbus is safer than Boeing?

You strike me as a nervous flyer with all due respect.

I’m not nervous about flying - have been flying the globe since 1991 - and can count mechanical delays on both hands - delays are normally weather, excessive traffic, or more recently - labor shortages …

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

Your statement led me to look up some data. Since there have been no recent fatal accidents, the NTSB data shows the following info. Sadly, my very favorite company, Boeing, is experiencing more reportable incidents per departure.

Of course, there are the MD aircraft rolled into Boeing, that may skew the numbers. Far more useful would be by make and model.

There must be more former military pilot's flying Airbus lol ?

All I can say is that I wouldn't hesitate to take my family on any brand ( Boeing or Airbus ) of aircraft, with any Airline in NA ( and many others around the world, but not all ) and I couldn't care less where they learned to fly, what brand or even if it was a B737 Max.

I have been doing this a long time and I notice nervous people have strange belief systems to try and make themselves ( not you ) feel better when it comes to flying.

I remember one passenger telling me that he only flies on my Airline because we always land better than any other airline so we must be better pilots. I almost laughed in his face ( irrational, nervous people ) and told him that's great for my ego but it's 100% untrue. We are no better than other airlines ( some have the biggest egos because we are the largest airline ).

For some nervous types, it's what brand of aircraft, airline, or where the pilots learned to fly.

Nervous people who watch shows like "Mayday" start coming up with bizarre beliefs.

That said the graph above looks like one of my ILS approaches ( but I do more hand flying than most, AP was off ).

 

[FowVay]

Somehow I managed to fly ( FO ) the B727, rack up around 26,000 hours total time all aircraft without an accident despite never landing on carriers.

I must have been lucky I guess

I miss those old noise makers. My last project as a sheet metal mechanic was to fabricate some hush kit extensions so that this glorious machine could fly a few more years into airports that just didn't love the sound of freedom.

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

I miss those old noise makers. My last project as a sheet metal mechanic was to fabricate some hush kit extensions so that this glorious machine could fly a few more years into airports that just didn't love the sound of freedom.

View attachment 222283

I don't enjoy watching aircraft take off and land as much as before, they are too quiet.

 

[edyvw]

There must be more former military pilot's flying Airbus lol ?

All I can say is that I wouldn't hesitate to take my family on any brand ( Boeing or Airbus ) of aircraft, with any Airline in NA ( and many others around the world, but not all ) and I couldn't care less where they learned to fly, what brand or even if it was a B737 Max.

I have been doing this a long time and I notice nervous people have strange belief systems to try and make themselves ( not you ) feel better when it comes to flying.

I remember one passenger telling me that he only flies on my Airline because we always land better than any other airline so we must be better pilots. I almost laughed in his face ( irrational, nervous people ) and told him that's great for my ego but it's 100% untrue. We are no better than other airlines ( some have the biggest egos because we are the largest airline ).

For some nervous types, it's what brand of aircraft, airline, or where the pilots learned to fly.

Nervous people who watch shows like "Mayday" start coming up with bizarre beliefs.

That said the graph above looks like one of my ILS approaches ( but I do more hand flying than most, AP was off ).

Flew on UAL MAX9 last week from Denver to Colorado Springs, on what I call “roof top” flight as it is 17min long and flies at 10,000ft over houses sitting between 5,400 and 7,800ft.
Two things:
1. It is insanely quiet.
2. It takes forever to start those 1b engines. I heard that before, and didn’t pay attention flying AMX8, but for whatever reason dis now, and really, it is noticeable longer start.

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

Flew on UAL MAX9 last week from Denver to Colorado Springs, on what I call “roof top” flight as it is 17min long and flies at 10,000ft over houses sitting between 5,400 and 7,800ft.
Two things:
1. It is insanely quiet.
2. It takes forever to start those 1b engines. I heard that before, and didn’t pay attention flying AMX8, but for whatever reason dis now, and really, it is noticeable longer start.

Very perceptive of you, as a passenger, to notice just how long it takes to start those engines - a LONG time.
A LOT more ramp congestion ( my base for sure ) with those aircraft due to other aircraft being held up longer waiting for them to get their engines started. Heard many ramp controllers mention it in a friendly way. Very efficient engines for planes but not airport ops efficient.

Takes two minutes to start both engines on the A320, but they are a lot less efficient fuel wise.