37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Attributes | |
ACN | 447685 |
Time | |
Date | 199908 |
Day | Thu |
Local Time Of Day | 0601 To 1200 |
Place | |
Locale Reference | airport : zzz.airport |
State Reference | US |
Altitude | agl single value : 0 |
Environment | |
Light | Daylight |
Aircraft 1 | |
Operator | common carrier : air carrier |
Make Model Name | A319 |
Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
Flight Phase | ground : maintenance ground : parked |
Flight Plan | IFR |
Person 1 | |
Affiliation | company : air carrier |
Function | maintenance : technician |
Qualification | technician : airframe technician : powerplant |
Experience | maintenance technician : 23 |
ASRS Report | 477685 |
Person 2 | |
Affiliation | company : air carrier |
Function | maintenance : technician |
Qualification | technician : airframe technician : powerplant |
Events | |
Anomaly | aircraft equipment problem : critical |
Independent Detector | aircraft equipment other aircraft equipment : brake temp indicator |
Resolutory Action | none taken : detected after the fact |
Consequence | other |
Factors | |
Maintenance | contributing factor : schedule pressure performance deficiency : testing performance deficiency : installation performance deficiency : fault isolation performance deficiency : training |
Supplementary | |
Problem Areas | Company Flight Crew Human Performance Aircraft Maintenance Human Performance |
Primary Problem | Aircraft |
Narrative:
The airbus A319/320's operated by my employer are currently experiencing brake problems (failure to release, uneven/jerky application, dragging, high brake temperature). One such problem (hot brake) occurred in ZZZ on aug/xa/99 on aircraft xyz. Maintenance was performed in ZZZ and abc. The aircraft experienced a brake fire on a different brake in xyx. I do not know how the maintenance was performed in abc or how the flight crew handled the aircraft in xyx. My experience on the A319/320 is limited. I have received no company training on this aircraft type. The #1 outboard brake was deactivated due to suspected dragging (the #1 brake temperature was reported from inbound crew at 320 degrees C while the #2 brake temperature was 125 degrees C. The crew made no write-up) per the MEL procedure 32040. Maintenance manual 32-42-00 was also referenced. One of the steps required is to bleed hydraulic pressure from the bleed ports. This was accomplished. After completion of MEL requirements, the aircraft was returned to service. Nothing abnormal was noted during pushback. The outbound crew made no mention of any abnormal operation of the brakes. The aircraft flew to lax. Upon arrival at lax the crew wrote up the brakes for jerky release on both sides and application not as smooth as normal. Mechanics at lax determined that the #1 brake was still dragging and it was re-bled. Operation of the 3 remaining brakes was reported normal. No mention was made of brake temperatures. The aircraft then flew from abc to xyx. At arrival to xyx the #2 inboard brake was on fire and the brake temperature was reported at 710 degrees C. All 4 brakes were replaced as well as the brake steering control unit. Aircraft was returned to service after taxi testing found braking normal. I became aware of the incident after 3 days off by checking aircraft history to learn how the original problem had been resolved. I have received no inquiries from anyone regarding this matter. While the #1 brake was deferred properly in ZZZ by those involved, I question if this was the best course of action. In checking history of other A319 aircraft in our fleet that have been returned to service with an inoperative brake, I did not find any that resulted in a brake fire of any of the remaining operating brakes. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the reporter stated the airbus 319 and 320 have carbon brakes installed and are experiencing brake problems. The reporter said the higher brake temperatures are causing the hydraulic fluid to crystallize in the control valve ports causing failure to release, uneven and jerky applications, dragging and high brake temperature. The reporter said at least 12 aircraft have had these reports and were cause for brake changes. The reporter said a brake was rendered inoperative and deferred per the MEL and was found dragging at the next station where it was bled. The reporter stated the aircraft was dispatched and on arrival the mated wheel brake caught fire. The reporter said another carrier who we service overnight on contract has the same carbon brakes with 1 major difference -- that being the axles are air cooled by a fan. The reporter stated this carrier has no brake problems.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: AIRBUS 319 AND 320 RPTED EXPERIENCING BRAKE PROBS, FAILURE TO RELEASE, UNEVEN JERKY APPLICATION, DRAGGING AND HIGH BRAKE TEMPS.
Narrative: THE AIRBUS A319/320'S OPERATED BY MY EMPLOYER ARE CURRENTLY EXPERIENCING BRAKE PROBS (FAILURE TO RELEASE, UNEVEN/JERKY APPLICATION, DRAGGING, HIGH BRAKE TEMP). ONE SUCH PROB (HOT BRAKE) OCCURRED IN ZZZ ON AUG/XA/99 ON ACFT XYZ. MAINT WAS PERFORMED IN ZZZ AND ABC. THE ACFT EXPERIENCED A BRAKE FIRE ON A DIFFERENT BRAKE IN XYX. I DO NOT KNOW HOW THE MAINT WAS PERFORMED IN ABC OR HOW THE FLC HANDLED THE ACFT IN XYX. MY EXPERIENCE ON THE A319/320 IS LIMITED. I HAVE RECEIVED NO COMPANY TRAINING ON THIS ACFT TYPE. THE #1 OUTBOARD BRAKE WAS DEACTIVATED DUE TO SUSPECTED DRAGGING (THE #1 BRAKE TEMP WAS RPTED FROM INBOUND CREW AT 320 DEGS C WHILE THE #2 BRAKE TEMP WAS 125 DEGS C. THE CREW MADE NO WRITE-UP) PER THE MEL PROC 32040. MAINT MANUAL 32-42-00 WAS ALSO REFED. ONE OF THE STEPS REQUIRED IS TO BLEED HYD PRESSURE FROM THE BLEED PORTS. THIS WAS ACCOMPLISHED. AFTER COMPLETION OF MEL REQUIREMENTS, THE ACFT WAS RETURNED TO SVC. NOTHING ABNORMAL WAS NOTED DURING PUSHBACK. THE OUTBOUND CREW MADE NO MENTION OF ANY ABNORMAL OP OF THE BRAKES. THE ACFT FLEW TO LAX. UPON ARR AT LAX THE CREW WROTE UP THE BRAKES FOR JERKY RELEASE ON BOTH SIDES AND APPLICATION NOT AS SMOOTH AS NORMAL. MECHS AT LAX DETERMINED THAT THE #1 BRAKE WAS STILL DRAGGING AND IT WAS RE-BLED. OP OF THE 3 REMAINING BRAKES WAS RPTED NORMAL. NO MENTION WAS MADE OF BRAKE TEMPS. THE ACFT THEN FLEW FROM ABC TO XYX. AT ARR TO XYX THE #2 INBOARD BRAKE WAS ON FIRE AND THE BRAKE TEMP WAS RPTED AT 710 DEGS C. ALL 4 BRAKES WERE REPLACED AS WELL AS THE BRAKE STEERING CTL UNIT. ACFT WAS RETURNED TO SVC AFTER TAXI TESTING FOUND BRAKING NORMAL. I BECAME AWARE OF THE INCIDENT AFTER 3 DAYS OFF BY CHKING ACFT HISTORY TO LEARN HOW THE ORIGINAL PROB HAD BEEN RESOLVED. I HAVE RECEIVED NO INQUIRIES FROM ANYONE REGARDING THIS MATTER. WHILE THE #1 BRAKE WAS DEFERRED PROPERLY IN ZZZ BY THOSE INVOLVED, I QUESTION IF THIS WAS THE BEST COURSE OF ACTION. IN CHKING HISTORY OF OTHER A319 ACFT IN OUR FLEET THAT HAVE BEEN RETURNED TO SVC WITH AN INOP BRAKE, I DID NOT FIND ANY THAT RESULTED IN A BRAKE FIRE OF ANY OF THE REMAINING OPERATING BRAKES. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR STATED THE AIRBUS 319 AND 320 HAVE CARBON BRAKES INSTALLED AND ARE EXPERIENCING BRAKE PROBS. THE RPTR SAID THE HIGHER BRAKE TEMPS ARE CAUSING THE HYD FLUID TO CRYSTALLIZE IN THE CTL VALVE PORTS CAUSING FAILURE TO RELEASE, UNEVEN AND JERKY APPLICATIONS, DRAGGING AND HIGH BRAKE TEMP. THE RPTR SAID AT LEAST 12 ACFT HAVE HAD THESE RPTS AND WERE CAUSE FOR BRAKE CHANGES. THE RPTR SAID A BRAKE WAS RENDERED INOP AND DEFERRED PER THE MEL AND WAS FOUND DRAGGING AT THE NEXT STATION WHERE IT WAS BLED. THE RPTR STATED THE ACFT WAS DISPATCHED AND ON ARR THE MATED WHEEL BRAKE CAUGHT FIRE. THE RPTR SAID ANOTHER CARRIER WHO WE SVC OVERNIGHT ON CONTRACT HAS THE SAME CARBON BRAKES WITH 1 MAJOR DIFFERENCE -- THAT BEING THE AXLES ARE AIR COOLED BY A FAN. THE RPTR STATED THIS CARRIER HAS NO BRAKE PROBS.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.