4
$\begingroup$

In the MEL for the A320 it is mentioned that ELAC 1 is a NO GO if carrying out EDTO operations. Why is ELAC 1 specifically for EDTO? In that case shouldn't it be for non EDTO operations also.

This somewhat contradicts ELAC 2 being a NO GO. Could someone please clarify this with an official reference.

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
3
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ For those of us not embroiled in A320 operations: ELAC - ELevator Aileron Computer, and EDTO - Extended Diversion Time Operations $\endgroup$
    – CatchAsCatchCan
    Commented Aug 8, 2019 at 8:40
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ EDTO is the new term for ETOPS, not A320 specific, but the name didn't catch on. $\endgroup$
    – user14897
    Commented Aug 8, 2019 at 10:16
  • $\begingroup$ @ymb1 didn't mean to pertain specifically to the A320. But while conducting EDTO on the A320. $\endgroup$
    – Jai
    Commented Aug 10, 2019 at 9:45

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
2
$\begingroup$

Basically, operating ETOPS/EDTO takes into consideration worst-case scenario situations (EMER ELEC CONFIG) where you will only have ELAC1 working.

In addition, its mentioned that ELAC2 in MEL is a NO-GO item due to the logic behind the system operation where it will allow ELAC2 to work first always, and in case ELAC2 fails ELAC1 will take over.

According to :

  • A320 FCOM ATA (27-10-20) Architecture (Pitch control). In normal operations, ELAC2 controls the elevator and the horizontal stabilizer, if a failure occurs in ELAC2 the system shifts pitch control to ELAC1.
  • A320 QRH ABN-18 ELEC (ELEC EMER CONFIG SYS REMAINING), In the emergency electric configuration the ELAC2 wouldn't be available when the emergency generator is running and ELAC1 will be the only available.
  • A320 FCOM ABN PRO (ELEC EMER CONFIG), ELAC2 is written within the INOP SYS table to confirm what happens when the aircraft goes into the emergency electric configuration.

enter image description here

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ I couldn't still fully understand from your answer why it's a NO GO $\endgroup$
    – Jai
    Commented Oct 12, 2020 at 10:10
-2
$\begingroup$

An item may be on the MEL be sure being into for a flight, day ,or other period is an acceptable risk but when giving that approval the authorities always consider the " next worst failure" which most often is the second version of the " failed "item. It was judged that the pilot workload, or reduction on safety margins , when under Erops ( I'm a traditionalist) and potentially up to 3 hours or more from a laudable airfield.

As a general eules, far fewer items are on an erops aircraft rather than an Aircraft released for "normal" service, which assumes a diversion airfield within one hour. (The last MMEL I negotiated was parts of the Airbus A400M avionics, 8 ish years ago)

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ David, I realize that perhaps English isn't your first language, but please get some help editing your basic grammar. That first sentence especially makes no sense at all. $\endgroup$
    – Michael Hall
    Commented Oct 10, 2020 at 22:10

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .