both generators fail on an A319

NoHeat

En-Route
Joined
Jul 27, 2009
Messages
4,992
Location
Iowa City, IA
Display Name

Display name:
17
My daughter was stranded when she was a passenger yesterday on a Frontier Airbus that diverted. The plane was en route from Denver and the captain announced that both electric generators had failed, and they would make an unplanned emergency landing at Des Moines, which is about 25 minutes short of the destination, which was Cedar Rapids IA. They were cruising at FL390 when this occurred. Passengers watched as a flight attendant finished serving a beer and then ran to an overhead storage bin to fetch a handbook of emergency procedures. After landing, the plane was met by lots of firetrucks and police.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/FFT694/history/20140523/0145Z/KDEN/KDSM

My question: how much redundancy remains, when both generators fail on an Airbus?

I'm guessing there would remain a generator on the auxiliary power unit and another on a ram-air turbine, plus a couple of batteries. Is that right?
 
There's a gen in the APU but I don't believe there's a RAT. Not like it's an ETOPS bird or anything like that.
 
He's got an APU, it's fine. Perhaps it can't power all the systems though?


I'm sure Rotor&wing will be along shortly to tell everyone that we're wrong.
 
I believe the max altitude to start the APU is something like FL250, so they probably did get a RAT deploy.
 
How long would the batteries last with no generators?
 
The A320 series have 2 engine driven generators, one APU driven generator and an emegrency generator driven by a RAT that deploys automaticaly with the loss of both main AC busses. The rat also powers the Blue (center) hydraulic system.

I think the batteries will supply power to the essential bus for at least 25 minutes (gotta ook it up) in the event that all 4 generators fail. The aircraft is still flyable and landable even with complete electrical failure as long as you have hydraulics for the rudder and stab trim. Engine thrust levers will work just like any other aircraft since their controls are powered by engine driven Permanent Magnet Generators (PMGs).
 
I believe the max altitude to start the APU is something like FL250, so they probably did get a RAT deploy.

Max altitude for APU start only on battery is 25,000. 39,000 with another operating. All three generators are identical and each is powerful enough for all needs.
 
The A320 series have 2 engine driven generators, one APU driven generator and an emegrency generator driven by a RAT that deploys automaticaly with the loss of both main AC busses. The rat also powers the Blue (center) hydraulic system.

I think the batteries will supply power to the essential bus for at least 25 minutes (gotta ook it up) in the event that all 4 generators fail. The aircraft is still flyable and landable even with complete electrical failure as long as you have hydraulics for the rudder and stab trim. Engine thrust levers will work just like any other aircraft since their controls are powered by engine driven Permanent Magnet Generators (PMGs).

Best explanation.
 
If your down to one anything, whether it's one hydraulic system, one engine, one generator (not counting the RAT) it's a divert to the nearest suitable field. The divert the crew did was just what they should have done.
 
If your down to one anything, whether it's one hydraulic system, one engine, one generator (not counting the RAT) it's a divert to the nearest suitable field. The divert the crew did was just what they should have done.



Oh what do you know busflyer? ;)
 
It's down to the fact hat there's probably maintenance facilities in DSM that CID lacks.
 
Flying home the other day in an MD-90, the captain came on and told us the APU was not working so he'd have to ground start an engine before pushback.

I thought it was a bit odd we'd be allowed to continue the flight without a working APU but I guess there's a level of required redundancy that's met by the engines and battery?
 
Flying home the other day in an MD-90, the captain came on and told us the APU was not working so he'd have to ground start an engine before pushback.

I thought it was a bit odd we'd be allowed to continue the flight without a working APU but I guess there's a level of required redundancy that's met by the engines and battery?

The MD90 isn't fly by wire like the A320. I was on back to back United flights without working APUs.
 
Flying home the other day in an MD-90, the captain came on and told us the APU was not working so he'd have to ground start an engine before pushback.

I thought it was a bit odd we'd be allowed to continue the flight without a working APU but I guess there's a level of required redundancy that's met by the engines and battery?

This isn't unusual. At some airlines you're lucky if you get an airplane that doesn't have an inoperative APU. Heck, on my last trip ours gave up the ghost in Montreal 2 minutes before pushback. Quick phone call to maintenance, pull a couple CBs to deactivate it, an entry into the aircraft's maintenance logbooks, and we were good to go. The only real difference after that is that we need an external air cart to start up the engines, and the air conditioning sucks on the ground.
 
Flying home the other day in an MD-90, the captain came on and told us the APU was not working so he'd have to ground start an engine before pushback.

I thought it was a bit odd we'd be allowed to continue the flight without a working APU but I guess there's a level of required redundancy that's met by the engines and battery?

You're right about the redundancy. If they had already had a generator that was inop then it would be a no go though.
 
Forgive my complete ignorance of big airliner systems, but what could cause both generators to fail that's not engine related?
 
Most avionics on airliners run on 400Hz/115V AC power. VHF COMs however run on 28VDC. If the cabin lights were on they would have to be running on the APU. It is unlikely that both engine generators would fail at the same time. This looks more like a failure on power distribution like a bus power relay or someone hit the wrong switch.

José
 
Flying home the other day in an MD-90, the captain came on and told us the APU was not working so he'd have to ground start an engine before pushback.

I thought it was a bit odd we'd be allowed to continue the flight without a working APU but I guess there's a level of required redundancy that's met by the engines and battery?

These things break ALL of the time. I approve about 3-4 engine starts at the gate because of INOP APU's. It's no big deal, but it's more common than one might think.
 
Been a long time ago and a lot older aircraft models, but as ground crew it was very common to be notified by dispatch than an aircraft was arriving with a dead APU, which meant we had to hook them up to ground power without delay when they arrived since they'd leave an engine turning until we did.

I'd say some days every other aircraft that pulled in had the warning on the load sheet.

It also triggered a need to have one of the gate crew or a supervisor (depending on how nice the Sup was or how busy everyone was) go get an air start unit and get it parked appropriately before the tugs and belt loaders and catering truck blocked mid-aircraft body access in tight gates.

Having it connected early meant an easy removal of the tugs and catering and walk over and start the thing a couple minutes before push. Having it stuck 100' away from the aircraft behind baggage carts and crap meant a mad shuffle of stuff to get things out of the way right before pushback. Mad vehicle shuffles tended to lead to mistakes and accidents.

The widebodies had life much easier in this regard. Much easier to move things around, other than the container loaders.

We didn't see much of it here in DEN but the other common request in hot climates, if one was available, and we didn't have nearly enough for every gate, and half of them were inop at any one time... and if the aircraft was equipped to use it, was a ground air conditioning unit for an APU-less airplane to try to keep cabin temps to somewhere above "sauna" but below "broil" in the summertime.

Those had to also be carefully parked so as not to suck the exhaust from anything running nearby into their outside air intake, since it's generally bad form to asphyxiate the self-loading cargo on the upper deck. ;)

It's too bad ramp work paid less than being a telephone operator by many dollars an hour, in the early 90s. I liked it a lot more than phone/desk work all day.

Only time it sucked bad was winter storms and gate de-icing. Slippery ****ing mess, it got on everything, and you'd wear the snow suit not so much to stay warm, since you were exerting yourself plenty to be sweating in it, but to have a layer you could strip off and ball up to keep from covering everything in your car and home with deicing fluid. Nasty. You'd have two jumpsuits and the one you just worked in, would go straight into the washer when you got home and you'd make sure the other one was dry for the next day, until the storms relented.

Duck boots were also great for all intended winter season purposes except one. Traction on a ramp covered in that same god-awful deicing fluid. They made pretty good ice skates in that stuff. But everything did, really.
 
Without knowing anything specific about this particular model aircraft I'd bet that if you shed all galley and IFE loads, there is more than enough electrical power to land it safely.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Back
Top