Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
737 Takes Off Without Cabin Pressure!  
User currently offlineBmacleod From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 2351 posts, RR: 0
Posted (9 years 5 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 15690 times:

Passengers on a Canjet flight YYZ-YHZ got an awful experience when their Canjet 737 took off without pressurization in the cabin!!

http://novascotia.cbc.ca/regional/se...w?filename=ns-canjet-plane20050628

Has this happened before?


The engine is the heart of an airplane, but the pilot is its soul.
59 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineN587NK From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 302 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (9 years 5 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 15629 times:

got to love the media

User currently offlineTod From Denmark, joined Aug 2004, 1729 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (9 years 5 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 15573 times:

Per the article:

"The head of CanJet, Ken Rowe, said flying without pressure in the cabin is an irritant, not a saftey concern."

Only if you stay under 8000 feet.

Ref: 14CFR25.841


User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31702 posts, RR: 56
Reply 3, posted (9 years 5 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 15421 times:

Quoting N587NK (Reply 1):
got to love the media

 bigthumbsup 

Unpressurized Flt........Expensive.
regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlinePlanespotting From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3533 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (9 years 5 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 15385 times:

i remember this from the 737 FOM:

"An unpressurized 737 flying during the day with 100 passengers will produce a cabin temperature of over 30 degrees Celcius flying at an altitude no greater than 8000 feet"



Do you like movies about gladiators?
User currently offline1MillionFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (9 years 5 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 15345 times:

Quoting Tod (Reply 2):
Only if you stay under 8000 feet.

12,000 ft is the FAA limit for no oxygen


User currently offlineLando From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 81 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (9 years 5 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 15317 times:

That might have been kind of cool flying that low for the whole flight...

User currently offlineTheGreatChecko From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 1130 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (9 years 5 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 15237 times:

10,000 is the limit in the US and its not that big of a deal. The cabin altitude is (oh my!) 8,000 feet in some aircraft in cruise.

What would you expect an airline to do if the AC packs are inop. Do a short flight low to somewhere it can get fixed, or cancel a bunch of flights, inconveniencing hundreds of passengers, just to pay through the nose so some outside MX outfit can fix it.

I go with the first option, but then again, thats just me.  Smile

GreatChecko



"A pilot's plane she is. She will love you if you deserve it, and try to kill you if you don't...She is the Mighty Q400"
User currently offlineToulouse From Switzerland, joined Apr 2005, 2759 posts, RR: 57
Reply 8, posted (9 years 5 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 15077 times:

Quoting TheGreatChecko (Reply 7):
Do a short flight low to somewhere it can get fixed, or cancel a bunch of flights, inconveniencing hundreds of passengers, just to pay through the nose so some outside MX outfit can fix it.

Do the short flight once there are no high terrain problems in the area I suppose.

Secondly, I'd prefer to think they would cancel the flight and get it fixed. I doubt it's legal to fly with the oxygen packs inop? I doubt it.



Long live Aer Lingus!
User currently offlineN587NK From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 302 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (9 years 5 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 15039 times:

It depends on what the MEL states for that aircraft, which of course would be approved by FAA or equivilent. I've worked a flight in a non-pressurized aircraft, although this was a SAAB340

User currently offlineRalgha From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 1614 posts, RR: 6
Reply 10, posted (9 years 5 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 15015 times:

Quoting 1MillionFlyer (Reply 5):
12,000 ft is the FAA limit for no oxygen

You're thinking of part 91 flight, and it's 12,500 feet. Under part 121, which this airplane would be flying under if it were in the US, the oxygen rules start at 10,000 feet.

Quoting Toulouse (Reply 8):
I doubt it's legal to fly with the oxygen packs inop? I doubt it.

Quite legal, few extra rules to abide by, but certainly not illegal.



09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
User currently offlineTheGreatChecko From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 1130 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (9 years 5 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 14914 times:

This thread makes me wonder what would happen if the media ever found out what an MEL was and how useful speed tape can be.  Smile

GreatChecko



"A pilot's plane she is. She will love you if you deserve it, and try to kill you if you don't...She is the Mighty Q400"
User currently offlineLegacy135 From Switzerland, joined May 2005, 1052 posts, RR: 26
Reply 12, posted (9 years 5 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 14896 times:

As long as they stick to the rules and to not fly higher than 10'000ft or whatever the limit is in Canada it is absolutely legal, unless the MEL says somewhat different. I do not fly the 737 and for sure it is not first choice to do a flight, carrying paying passengers without pressurization but basically it should work. Operators flying the Shorts, the Twin Otters or DC-3's are flying all day long without pressurization  Wink

User currently offlineN587NK From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 302 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (9 years 5 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 14886 times:

Quoting TheGreatChecko (Reply 11):
speed tape

Is that what you call it? we call it Duct Tape..it fixes anything


User currently offlineAzjubilee From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 3990 posts, RR: 27
Reply 14, posted (9 years 5 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 14876 times:

Oh brother... we take off unpressurized all the time. Standard practice on the avro is to take off with the APU running and supplying the air source. However if the APU is deferred our SOP is to take off unpressurized with no air and once airborne in the after takeoff check we bring the engine air on to pressurize. Other situations are like as mentioned above... if packs are deferred one can fly at 10,000 unpressurized. It's not uncommon what WestJet did. The media acts as if people that live in high altitude cities or who moutain climb bring portable pressurization bubbles with them!!


AZJ


User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (9 years 5 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 14835 times:

Quoting TheGreatChecko (Reply 11):
This thread makes me wonder what would happen if the media ever found out what an MEL was and how useful speed tape can be.

They'd be horrified, and counter that every aircraft had to be 100% perfect before it departed.

Of course, forcing one of them to keep their personal car in the garage (on a clear day) because the windshield wipers happened to be inop would be a totally unacceptable concept...  Wink


User currently offlineBoeing744 From Canada, joined Jun 2005, 1843 posts, RR: 23
Reply 16, posted (9 years 5 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 14824 times:

Please excuse me if I am being ignorant, but I asume this is one of CanJet's 737-200s, not the newer 737-500s. Can someone confirm this?

User currently offlineBA380 From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 1466 posts, RR: 8
Reply 17, posted (9 years 5 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 14800 times:

i am probably being stupid, but wouldn't the doors be openable at under 8,000ft if you pulled them in? I thought it was the pressurization that kept them locked, by pushinh the doors out, and therefore locked becasue you need to oen them inwards?


cabin crew: doors to automatic and cross-check...
User currently offlineToulouse From Switzerland, joined Apr 2005, 2759 posts, RR: 57
Reply 18, posted (9 years 5 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 14778 times:

Quoting Legacy135 (Reply 12):
Operators flying the Shorts, the Twin Otters or DC-3's are flying all day long without pressurization

Yes, very true!

Is it common to take off on an Airbus/Boeing with the cabin unpressurised? I know if there is depressurisation during flight, the crew must descent to 10000/12000 ft, at which altitude passenger should be able to breath normally, so if for some reason a flight is going to be short and below this altitude, would it be common practice to not pressurise.

Exuse my question if they seem ignorant, which they may very well be, it's just I was recently working on a large document on depressurisation (I'm a translator) so this is quite interesting!



Long live Aer Lingus!
User currently offlineLegacy135 From Switzerland, joined May 2005, 1052 posts, RR: 26
Reply 19, posted (9 years 5 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 14762 times:

Quoting BA380 (Reply 17):
i am probably being stupid, but wouldn't the doors be openable at under 8,000ft if you pulled them in? I thought it was the pressurization that kept them locked, by pushinh the doors out, and therefore locked because you need to oen them inwards?

Would you really like to try and open this door in flight? Or let me ask you, would you try it if the cabin was pressurized?
Sure, due to a working pressurization it is pretty impossible to open them in flight, but I still would not go and try it. There are several things in aviation they do not need to be tried out at any prize. I remember a Crossair Crew in ZRH, trying if the gear can be retracted by pushing an override button. It was not really there day, the SAAB 340 ended o it's belly.....  Wink
By the way, I wouldn't try if the Thrust Reversers really don't open or not in flight either...


User currently offline1MillionFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (9 years 5 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 14720 times:

Quoting Ralgha (Reply 10):
You're thinking of part 91 flight, and it's 12,500 feet. Under part 121, which this airplane would be flying under if it were in the US, the oxygen rules start at 10,000 feet.

whoops you are right, my coffee had not kicked in.


User currently offlineBA380 From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 1466 posts, RR: 8
Reply 21, posted (9 years 5 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 14698 times:

Quoting Legacy135 (Reply 19):
Would you really like to try and open this door in flight?

no - but I would feel a whole lot better knowing that no other idiot could open them 000s of feet up - whether it be a terrorist or a drunk or a kid playing around!



cabin crew: doors to automatic and cross-check...
User currently offlineS12PPL From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (9 years 5 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 14684 times:

I have been on a plane that flew with no cabin pressure. A Horizon Air flight, on a Q400 from SEA-PDX back in 2003. There was no danger, and the views of Mt. Raineer and Mt. St. Helens were superb!

User currently offlineLegacy135 From Switzerland, joined May 2005, 1052 posts, RR: 26
Reply 23, posted (9 years 5 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 14602 times:

Quoting BA380 (Reply 21):
no - but I would feel a whole lot better knowing that no other idiot could open them 000s of feet up - whether it be a terrorist or a drunk or a kid playing around!

...I got this, but I think you don't have to worry about. Number one reason is that if there was a danger, there would be a certification issue, as on a non pressurized plane they basically can be opened all time long. Second reason, if you imagine the cumulation of incidents you need to face, to have a situation with a drunken guy trying to open the door and just this day, the pressurization is not working.... so, probability is that low that it is negliable.
Sure, the imagination to fall out a plane at 10'000ft is scary, but I think it's still better than to fall out of a train going 100 miles an hour. Both will kill you, you just get a better view, falling out of the plane Big grin


User currently offlineLuvfa From United States of America, joined May 2005, 447 posts, RR: 4
Reply 24, posted (9 years 5 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 14593 times:

I once worked a flight where I noticed my ears were popping excessively as we ascended past 10,000'. Needless to say, I called the cockpit to find out what was going on. They told me they were having problems with the pressurization and they were doing some manual tests. If that didn't work we would return to our departure city. Sure enough about 1 minute later, we turned around and headed back.

Everything was OK when we left, but things happen. I suspect maybe what happened in Nova Scotia was similar, but we all know how the media sometimes "twists" facts or contexts.


25 Air2gxs : I door can be opened when there is zero pressure differential. The fool opening the door would still have to contend with the slipstream. I don't thi
26 Gigneil : you probably could, and it has been done. I recall a smoke filled 747 descending to 10,000, putting the safety belt demonstrator across a door, and c
27 Tod : opps! 14CRF25.841 only applies to "normal conditions" § 25.841 Pressurized cabins. (a) Pressurized cabins and compartments to be occupied must be eq
28 TheGreatChecko : It really depends on the aircraft. Most turbine aircraft are pressurized, so for efficiency reasons, flying above 10K is usually the best option. How
29 PIA777 : I flew CANJET for the first and last time 2 weeks ago when I flew them LGA-YYZ. You have to pay for everything, nothing is free on the flight. The lan
30 Bmacleod : Well, CanJet is a no-frills low-cost carrier which means that everthing else beside your seat and your luggage is an added cost. You did realize this
31 Post contains images Legacy135 : ...... could be another option for our friend O'Leary, Ryanair could charge extra for pressurized flights
32 Post contains images YYZYYT : Harsh. They also let you read the safety card for free!   As it happens I was perusing Canjet flights to YHZ as part of my usual itinerary, and I an
33 1MillionFlyer : oops back at you, "NORMAL OPERATING CONDITIONS", that is for certification for a WORKING pressurization system to be operated, not when it has failed
34 Post contains images DCrawley : Unless you are in a C-17 Globemaster III doing a combat approach.. LoL.. sorry Legacy135, I couldn't help myself ! But I must agree, not something I
35 Toulouse : Thanks TheGreatChecko for your reply. Much appreciated.
36 Post contains links YYZYYT : Off the original topic... but beleive it or not it has been tried on passenger flights - For example, the Alitalia DC8 which crashed on landing at JF
37 Legacy135 : Please allow me as well to deviate once more from the topic: As far as my senior colleagues who had the privilege to fly the DC-8 told me, was a McDo
38 PIA777 : Bmacleod, I did not realize the fact that it was such a cheap airline because my company's travel agent booked it for me. It was the cheapest way to g
39 YYZYYT : PIA777 Actually, if you are expecting LCC, CanJet can be great. They have a really friendly attitude and low prices, so I fly them frequently as a res
40 ACdreamliner : 8000 feet is the cabin altitude throughout flight. so there would be no differing effects up to that level, unless air conditioning was down fully. an
41 1MillionFlyer : the pressure changes relative with the altitude. If you take off at a Sea Level the cabin altitude is sea level. You can set the "climb rate" of the
42 AirWillie6475 : Wait a minute if the there was no pressure shouldn't most of the passengers been asleep rather then having pain and discomfort?
43 Brons2 : My dad flew in an AA 727 DFW-IAH unpressurized in 2001. He said they flew at 8000 feet.
44 Post contains images MissedApproach : Maybe you should've paid for a good landing! YYZ to YHZ is a pretty long haul at low altitude, must've cost them a lot more on fuel. Cheaper than the
45 Post contains images Vinceb1117 : I think the title of the post is misleading... all aircraft takeoff un-pressurized. They don't pressurize until they're off the ground.
46 Legacy135 : Sorry, I have to disagree with your statement. I know, you are joking with the topics in regard of technical details but would like to clarify some a
47 Aa757first : And that wasn't a one time thing. That is a standard procedure that all flight attendants learn when they are getting trained on a 747. AAndrew
48 Tod : Depending on the airline and aircraft involved, cabin altitude at cruise can commonly vary between 5600 and 7400. During normal operations most never
49 YOW : Please excuse me if I am being ignorant, but I asume this is one of CanJet's 737-200s, not the newer 737-500s. Can someone confirm this? This would ha
50 Luisca : My dad flew on a TGU-SJO flight on COPA unpressurized in a 737-200, the upside of this was that becouse of this he got to fly on the 738 in the SJO-PT
51 Alcregular : On my very first flight, 16 years ago whilst flying with BY on NCL-GRO on a 732, the flight was running late, so the pressure was built up, and we sta
52 YYZYYT : This was on the CBC Natonal news last night - it was the usual 3-ring circus: passnegers complaining their ears hurt... kids were all screaming... the
53 Post contains images HAWK21M : Its called Air Condition Packs.The MEL does permit Despatch with INOP Packs for Unpressurised Flt. High Speed Tape & Duct Tape are very Different out
54 ZRH : 10000 feet should not be a problem. I am often over 10000 feet while skiing here. But it must be extremely expensive for the airline to fly at this a
55 Tod : The "speed tape" we have is some cool aluminum stuff with a peel off backing.
56 Post contains images HAWK21M : Thats High Speed tape alright regds MEL
57 Patrickj : Yes ALL the airliners I've flown (B727,737,757,767,FK28,FK100) DO pressurize on the ground. The outflow valve will close to allow the cabin to pressu
58 Bmacleod : Also being a low-cost carrier Canjet must or should be aware that they burn more fuel at a lower altitude and with oil at $60 fuel expenses are now a
59 Goose : The airline in question was CanJet, not WestJet.....
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Asiana Takes Off Without Passanger Crew posted Sat Aug 12 2006 14:15:01 by Mortyman
UA 757 Takes Off Without FAs? posted Fri Nov 24 2000 23:31:18 by Zanadou
US 737 Returns To FLL After Cabin Pressure Problem posted Sat Aug 20 2005 03:27:53 by Hawk44
Alaska Airlines Takes-off On Wrong Runway In Ksea posted Wed Nov 1 2006 17:19:16 by Amwest2United
First Thai 777-200ER Takes Off! With Pics posted Tue Oct 24 2006 12:55:29 by Qantas744ER
LH A343 GRU-MUC Takes Off posted Fri Sep 15 2006 09:49:53 by Hardiwv
Alaska Airlines Flight Loses Cabin Pressure posted Fri Aug 18 2006 18:43:26 by Yellowstone
AeroSur's Inagural Takes Off To MIA posted Tue Aug 8 2006 06:08:41 by MAH4546
Rude And Off-hand Cabin Crew On BA posted Sun Jul 2 2006 11:43:29 by BRUspotter
Darwin Airline Takes Off To OLB And CAG! posted Fri Jun 2 2006 09:11:41 by HBDAN