Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
One Pack Inop Dring Cruise, Shall Descent?  
User currently offlineCptpilot737 From Turkey, joined Dec 2005, 6 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3441 times:

I need to clarify something about pressurization system of a B737-400.

From the MEL it says for the PACKs "one may be inoperative provided flight altitude remains at or below FL 250." ( there must be a reason for this )

from the QRH it doesn't say any thing to descent to FL 250 or stop climb if you are below FL 250.

I wonder, if in flight you are below FL 250 and climbing, than you have a Pack Trip Off and unable to trip reset, shall we read the checklist but stay below FL 250 ( with recalling the MEL restriction ) or shall we read the checklist and continue to climb to above FL 250 because there is no FL restriction at the QRH.

Also what about if Pack trip Off above FL 250, shall we descent to below FL 250 or shall we Maintain the present FL. ?

What is your company procedure in these situations ?

Thanks to everybody ......

34 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineLonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4915 posts, RR: 43
Reply 1, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3431 times:

When I flew the B737-200, if you had a pack fail above FL250, you could remain at your cruising altitude. However, if it failed below that, or on the ground, then your cruising altitude was restricted to FL250.

I



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlineGoldenshield From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 5970 posts, RR: 14
Reply 2, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3421 times:

It is also the PIC's decision as to whether it is neccesary to decend to FL250. MEL's are dispatch limitations, after all.

The wording of the governing regulatory agency will come into play as well.



Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun.
User currently offlineAAR90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3466 posts, RR: 47
Reply 3, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3420 times:

An MEL is for dispatch purposes. IOW, if you depart with a pack inop, you must plan and operate the flight at FL250 or below. If you depart with both packs operating and one fails during flight, the MEL restrictions do not apply. IOW, you follow appropriate checklist procedures and may remain above FL250 if your procedures permit it.


*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
User currently offlineSabenapilot From Belgium, joined Feb 2000, 2714 posts, RR: 47
Reply 4, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3411 times:

Legally, the MEL is only applicable till the moment the plane starts moving on its own power. As soon as you start taxiing, the limitations contained in the MEL related to failures which occurred after you've started taxiing are not legally binding anymore.

Obviously a good pilot confronted with a problem shall always have a look at the MEL too once all checklist(s) have been cleared, yet it is up to the PIC whether or not to follow the MEL.

The reason why the QRH/checklist (IN FLIGHT) doesn't say you MUST decent below FL 250 whereas the MEL (ON THE GROUND) limits you to FL 250 in case of 1 PACK INOP is because the manufacturer doesn't know if by making you descend you'll still have enough fuel to reach your destination! Checklist must be applicable in ALL cases and may not put you in unwanted situations when you follow them blindly, hence the omission of the requirement to decent.

What I would personally do in this case is to check the fuel and the WX on route. If a descent would be possible, I'd follow the most limiting factor (i.e. the MEL) and descent to FL250 or below since there is a damn good reason the manufacturer limits a flight with 1 PACK INOP to FL250 when still in dispatch. However, if I'd be short on extra fuel or the WX at lower altitudes along my route would be bad, I'd stay at the planned cruising level, fully in accordance with the checklists and covered by law.

Other methods may be equally acceptable as well though.

[Edited 2006-02-19 17:14:02]

User currently offlineNonfirm From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 434 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 3293 times:

Quoting Sabenapilot (Reply 4):
Legally, the MEL is only applicable till the moment the plane starts moving on its own power. As soon as you start taxiing, the limitations contained in the MEL related to failures which occurred after you've started taxiing are not legally binding anymore

If you call for an en-route def you will need to comply with the restrictions of the mel.In the case of the pack i believe it tells you to shut it off.Some mel's give you the option to use a related system not affected.Plus the mel's you leave with need to be complied with.


User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8884 posts, RR: 75
Reply 6, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 3236 times:

Quoting Sabenapilot (Reply 4):
Legally, the MEL is only applicable till the moment the plane starts moving on its own power.

Think this is changing, some I am seeing say when power is applied for takeoff.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineSabenapilot From Belgium, joined Feb 2000, 2714 posts, RR: 47
Reply 7, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 3211 times:

Quoting Nonfirm (Reply 5):
If you call for an en-route def you will need to comply with the restrictions of the mel. Plus the mel's you leave with need to be complied with.

Not sure it I understand you correctly.
Obviously, the MEL is applicable all the time on all those items which have failed before you've started the flight, but MEL items occurring AFTER you've departed obviously do not have to be complied with in flight...
For instance, are you allowed to dispatch any twin one-engine out according to the MEL? Certainly not! Still, there are on-route procedures (drift down, one-engine out approach, landing, go-around etc....) on all twins, so obviously despite the lack of a MEL procedure for one-egine out dispatch(which thus means you MUST have the item operating according to MEL), this limitation is NOT applicable if the failure occurs AFTER you've left.
It is however always a good idea to read the MEL if you encounter a technical problem in flight, after checklists have been cleared to see what it says; it might give you an idea what might be good captaincy to do.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 6):
Think this is changing, some I am seeing say when power is applied for takeoff.

Depends on the regulating body.
JAR-OPS 1.030 and further states "the MEL is applicable until the plane commences the flight" and the definition of a flight is made as '"the period between the moment an aircraft moves by its own means for the purpose of preparing to take-off till the moment the aircraft comes to a complete stop after the landing.

Since this indeed means the MEL is NOT applicable for new items occurring as soon as the plane commences to taxi, some companies/national authorities restrict it further and chance the definition of the flight, letting it start at the moment of take-off, thus also making MEL restrictions applicable for system failures happening in the pre-take off taxi.

Maybe FAA is also more restrictive than JAR-OPS in this case?

[Edited 2006-02-21 12:30:00]

User currently offlineCosmicCruiser From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2255 posts, RR: 16
Reply 8, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 3194 times:

Quoting Sabenapilot (Reply 7):
Depends on the regulating body.
JAR-OPS 1.030 and further states "the MEL is applicable until the plane commences the flight" and the definition of a flight is made as '"the period between the moment an aircraft moves by its own means for the purpose of preparing to take-off till the moment the aircraft comes to a complete stop after the landing.

Since this indeed means the MEL is NOT applicable for new items occurring as soon as the plane commences to taxi, some companies/national authorities restrict it further and chance the definition of the flight, letting it start at the moment of take-off, thus also making MEL restrictions applicable for system failures happening in the pre-take off taxi.

Maybe this will help. For the most part the MEL is not applicable after you push back from the gate(start to move) however some items are, as we say, "flagged items" and require a maint. action and if you're still on the ground you must comply. Obviously in the air you pull out the QRH.
Here is an example that I pulled out of the MD-11 MEL. After you pushback you can lose both flight directors and after consulting the MEL find that you may press on as long as the flt. dir. are not required for the dept. or app. and that both a/p work and you are not RVSM.
Now pushback and have a start value malfunction during eng. start and after you consult the MEL you will find it "flagged" and maint must now confirm or manually operate start valve operation.
If you were to lose both flt. dir. in the air the QRH will direct you to a req'd equip. page for the app. and you would find, surprisingly that you need 1 flt. dir (2 displays) for a hand flown CATI but none for a CATIII dual land. app.


User currently offlineSabenaboy From Belgium, joined Feb 2001, 187 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 3181 times:

I think it is obvious that there might be differences between JAR and FAR rules.

I can only speak for "my" operator: the introduction to the MEL says:
"The provisions of the MEL are applicable until the airplane commences the flight (the point at which the aircraft first moves under its own power.)"

This means that if I have a pack failure in flight I do not HAVE to consult the MEL.

It's up to the captain to decide how to continue. Personally, with enough fuel on board, I would descend to the altitude mentioned in the MEL. If my fuelstate would not allow me to descend AND continue to my destination, I would keep my initial FL. That would be legal.

Regards,
Sabenaboy


User currently offlineJetlagged From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 2543 posts, RR: 24
Reply 10, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3173 times:

A single pack will be more than sufficient to maintain normal cruise cabin differential pressure. So there is no safety reason to descend with a single pack failure in cruise.

However, you probably wouldn't have enough air flow to attain that cabin differential if despatched with one pack. Therefore you must plan your flight for the limited cruise altitude and consequent higher fuel flow.

Quoting Sabenapilot (Reply 4):
If a descent would be possible, I'd follow the most limiting factor (i.e. the MEL) and descent to FL250 or below since there is a damn good reason the manufacturer limits a flight with 1 PACK INOP to FL250 when still in dispatch.

Apart from the reason given above and the reduced redundancy, what is the damn good reason to descend? If the second pack failed there is still no emergency. With no packs, cabin altitude will increase slowly, but not so fast as to require an emergency descent.



The glass isn't half empty, or half full, it's twice as big as it needs to be.
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29791 posts, RR: 58
Reply 11, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 3164 times:

To certificate an aircraft above 25K you need to have two packs. My Dispatch Examiner asked me why the B1900 was only certificated to 25K and this was the reason he told me. (I told him I didn't know).

So it is logical that if you have to fly with only one operatable you have to meet the certificate standards for an aircraft with only one pack-Which translates to a 25K max altitude on an aircraft with only one pack working.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineJetlagged From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 2543 posts, RR: 24
Reply 12, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 3163 times:

Quoting L-188 (Reply 11):
So it is logical that if you have to fly with only one operatable you have to meet the certificate standards for an aircraft with only one pack-Which translates to a 25K max altitude on an aircraft with only one pack working.

If that was the case the FCOM would dictate a descent to 25,000 in the event of a pack failure. Which it apparently doesn't in the case of the 737.



The glass isn't half empty, or half full, it's twice as big as it needs to be.
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29791 posts, RR: 58
Reply 13, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 3153 times:

Quoting Jetlagged (Reply 12):
If that was the case the FCOM would dictate a descent to 25,000 in the event of a pack failure. Which it apparently doesn't in the case of the 737.

No issue with that comment, but I am refering to the MEL issue from a dispatch perspective, not from an inflight one. In flight a MEL is dead-weight in the airplane. The FCOM or the applicable flight/ops manual should be the one that are referenced by the pilot for dealing with in-flight failures. From what has been described here, I have no reason to doubt that I would not be able to dispatch/file that 737 over FL250 unless both packs are working.

As you know the MEL is a ground document, in that it's intended users are the mechanics and dispatchers on the ground. Which actually goes back to cptpilot737's original question. The MEL's are only for determining if an aircraft is ok for flight, and if there is a specfic maintaince procedures to ok an aircraft for flight with something inop, that may be affixing a sticker to wiring something shut, banding a breaker whatever.

Beside you been in the biz as long as I have you know nothing on an airplane will break until it is on the return leg.

(I have never worked for an airline as a dispatcher that operated 737's so take what I say with a grain of salt).



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineSabenapilot From Belgium, joined Feb 2000, 2714 posts, RR: 47
Reply 14, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 3074 times:

Quoting CosmicCruiser (Reply 8):
For the most part the MEL is not applicable after you push back from the gate(start to move) however some items are, as we say, "flagged items" and require a maint. action and if you're still on the ground you must comply.

I never saw or even heared about this kind of procedure and I can't find anything about it in JAR-OPS, so it must be something limited to FAA. It is certainly NOT how we do it.

Quoting Sabenaboy (Reply 9):
can only speak for "my" operator: the introduction to the MEL says:
"The provisions of the MEL are applicable until the airplane commences the flight (the point at which the aircraft first moves under its own power.)"

Which is in full compliance with JAR-OPS.

It would not be the first time a specific flight can not dispatch under FAA rules, whereas it could under JAR-OPS or vice versa.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 13):
Beside you been in the biz as long as I have you know nothing on an airplane will break until it is on the return leg.

Funny, but so true...
Saw statictics once showing 'non-vital' items seriously limited by MEL restrictions in case of failure have a tendency to "unexplicably" break on the return flight in 80% of the cases! Items I can think of are: nav lights, WX radars, ....

[Edited 2006-02-22 08:58:34]

User currently offlineAAR90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3466 posts, RR: 47
Reply 15, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2998 times:

Quoting Jetlagged (Reply 10):
A single pack will be more than sufficient to maintain normal cruise cabin differential pressure. So there is no safety reason to descend with a single pack failure in cruise.

Depends upon the aircraft.

Quoting Sabenapilot (Reply 14):
I never saw or even heared about this kind of procedure and I can't find anything about it in JAR-OPS, so it must be something limited to FAA. It is certainly NOT how we do it.

Each FAR-121 airline maintains its own MEL (with FAA approval) that is at least as strict (probably more strict) than the manufacturer's Master MEL for that aircraft type. i.e. AA's B738 MEL will be slightly different than CO's B738 MEL, etc. FWIW, I've never heard/seen of a "flagged" item in any AA MEL.



*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
User currently offlineCosmicCruiser From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2255 posts, RR: 16
Reply 16, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2981 times:

Quoting AAR90 (Reply 15):
I've never heard/seen of a "flagged" item in any AA MEL.

You may have another term that's just what we call it since the maint. action required has a arrow, "flag" at the top of the page by the MEL item. Considering the example I gave regarding the start valve fails to open/close how would you handle this without having maint perform some action. In this particular case maint must manually confirm the start value is open and closed after each start. You just couldn't say "hey, we've pushed back we're good to go". I can find some other exmaples such as a main tank fuel synoptic display(MD-11/10 specific) that requires maint to perform a couple of tasks. Keep in mind that the MEL still gives relief to the specific item and you may fly with it inop but some items require action before continueing....CC


User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2979 times:

Quoting Zeke (Reply 6):
Think this is changing, some I am seeing say when power is applied for takeoff.



Quoting Sabenapilot (Reply 7):
Depends on the regulating body.
JAR-OPS 1.030 and further states "the MEL is applicable until the plane commences the flight" and the definition of a flight is made as '"the period between the moment an aircraft moves by its own means for the purpose of preparing to take-off till the moment the aircraft comes to a complete stop after the landing.

Since this indeed means the MEL is NOT applicable for new items occurring as soon as the plane commences to taxi, some companies/national authorities restrict it further and chance the definition of the flight, letting it start at the moment of take-off, thus also making MEL restrictions applicable for system failures happening in the pre-take off taxi.

Maybe FAA is also more restrictive than JAR-OPS in this case?

Yes, they are. Zeke is quite correct...

For years here in the US, the definition of "departure" for MEL purposes was equated to pushback or the first forward movement of the aircraft taxiing away from the gate/parking area.

Around the 1989-1990 timeframe, a US operator had an incident with a 727 involving an improper MEL deferral, and the FAA went after the dispatcher and pilot, looking for permanent revocation of their certificates. The whole mess ended up in front of an NTSB Administrative Law Judge, and one of the "defenses" he heard from the airline involved was that the flight had "departed" (taxied out, but still on the ground) and thus was "enroute" and the MEL no longer applied. The NTSB ALJ said, in part, that that kind of definition/interpretation was "an accident waiting to happen", since the basic intent of an MEL is not to let an unairworthy aircraft get into the air, and predicating that go/no-go decision based on where the on the airport surface the aircraft actually was (gate, or taxiway) was just nuts. The dispatcher and flightcrew all "got off" (such as it was) with 180-day suspensions, still a $ubstansial hit, and the airline was fined $60,000.

It was suggested to various airlines at the time that their respective MELs needed to be changed to reflect and to incorporate the lessons from this NTSB ALJ's comments, but the airlines (and ATA) all doth protested that such an interpretation would cause delays, etc. etc.

Years pass, and in the 1990s, a dispatcher at a major airline in the USA writes the FAA General Counsel requesting a legal interpretation of the "departure" definition for MEL purposes. The FAA GC subsequently ruled that it's not pushback or first forward taxiing movement, but rather, when the aircraft is "offered for flight", i.e the throttles are pushed up for takeoff. Any failures or other MX discrepancies that occur between leaving the gate and application of takeoff thrust have to be handled just like they would be if you were still parked at the gate.

It took awhile, but eventually this FAA GC interpretation finally trickled down through ATA and the various US-registered airlines, such that their respective MEL preambles were changed to reflect the new reality. There could theoretically be some out there that don't, but if so, pilots and dispatchers at those airlines are operating at their own legal peril.

All of the above was within the USA, and applicable to US-registered airlines, and it's clear that the old "departure" definition appears to still exist in other areas of the world. That's not particularly surprising, given that few countries/airlines outside the USA have the same type of operational control set-up with joint authority between a US PIC and a US aircraft dispatcher.


User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8884 posts, RR: 75
Reply 18, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2951 times:

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 17):
All of the above was within the USA, and applicable to US-registered airlines, and it's clear that the old "departure" definition appears to still exist in other areas of the world. That's not particularly surprising, given that few countries/airlines outside the USA have the same type of operational control set-up with joint authority between a US PIC and a US aircraft dispatcher.

I am not seeing any differance between FAA and JAA here.

The very subtle point here is the "point of dispatch"

In FAA land and many other places that follow FAA based MMELs the"point of dispatch"is when"thust/power applied for takeoff"

In JAA land the "point of dispatch" is "pushback"

When the MEL can be applied is the same its is the "point of dispatch", what differs is when then "point of dispatch" is, subtle but necessary point to make.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2945 times:

Quoting Zeke (Reply 18):
I am not seeing any differance between FAA and JAA here.

The very subtle point here is the "point of dispatch"

In FAA land and many other places that follow FAA based MMELs the "point of dispatch" is when"thust/power applied for takeoff"

In JAA land the "point of dispatch" is "pushback"

When the MEL can be applied is the same its is the "point of dispatch", what differs is when then "point of dispatch" is, subtle but necessary point to make.

It's not just a subtle difference, it's more like more mud in the wather...  Wink

The problem with "point of dispatch" is that under US Part 121 Domestic/Flag regs is that it's sort of meaningless, given those regs. Since a dispatcher is sending a dispatch release that authorizes the flight movement, when is the flight actually dispatched? When the dispatcher hits the "transmit" or "send" key on his/her computer? When the station receives the release? When the aircraft pushes back?

Some of this, I think, is a throwback to the military, where your flight has been "dispatched" once the guy/gal waving you out gives you a final salute and points you off thataway. Sometime way back at an airline far, far away, I had a "discussion" with a PIC (who was leaving me out of the loop re: critical safety-of-flight information) and he insisted that since I had previously sent the release and he had been "dispatched" and was now enroute that my involvement with the flight was complete and that he was running the show all by himself. I explained to him that, under our Part 121 ops, that "dispatch" (in the context of "operational control") was a continuing duty, and not the singular event that he supposed it was. I also sent him to FAR 1.1, Definitions, and had him look up "operational control."

"Operational control, with respect to a flight, means the exercise of authority over initiating, conducting or terminating a flight."

My PIC obviously had the "initiating" aspect down, but was remiss in understanding the other two. Yes, the PIC is the final authority etc. etc. but that doesn't negate the relationship between the PIC and the dispatcher under Part 121 Domestic/Flag regs...

Now, back to MEL deferrals, they need to get rid of any "point of dispatch" verbiage, and change it to "departure", the latter term being defined by pushing the throttles up for takeoff and "offer the aircraft for flight".


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29791 posts, RR: 58
Reply 20, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2914 times:

Quoting AAR90 (Reply 15):
i.e. AA's B738 MEL will be slightly different than CO's B738 MEL, etc.

Actually MEL's are serial number specific.

Meaning that each airplane will actually have it's own MEL.

This makes sense when you realize that even though both aircraft might have been identical when it left Renton, over it's life different systems may have been added or removed.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2913 times:

Quoting L-188 (Reply 20):
Actually MEL's are serial number specific.

Meaning that each airplane will actually have it's own MEL.

Could you expand on this--I want to make sure I understand what you're saying.. Thanks...


User currently offlineNonfirm From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 434 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2899 times:

Quoting Sabenapilot (Reply 7):
MEL items occurring AFTER you've departed obviously do not have to be complied with in flight...

I was trying to say if you have a problem after pushback from the gate and you have a problem and you call for an en-route def from maint control you will need to comply with that mel for the rest of the flight.


User currently offlineJetlagged From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 2543 posts, RR: 24
Reply 23, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2867 times:

Quoting AAR90 (Reply 15):
Depends upon the aircraft.

Name an aircraft that can't maintain cruise cabin altitude on one pack. Anyway we were talking about the 737.



The glass isn't half empty, or half full, it's twice as big as it needs to be.
User currently offlineCosmicCruiser From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2255 posts, RR: 16
Reply 24, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2866 times:

Quoting L-188 (Reply 20):
Actually MEL's are serial number specific.

I can't quite buy off on that one. Each MEL on each a/c may have an N number attached to it but the MEL will be the same for that type. I can pull up the MD-11 MEL on the Fedex website or the MD-10 or the DC-10 or the B-727, or the Airbus, etc and they're not airplane specfic.

Quoting Jetlagged (Reply 23):
Name an aircraft that can't maintain cruise cabin altitude on one pack

Depends on the age and the particular jet, some will, some won't. Wouldn't you agree?


25 CX flyboy : The FL restriction is the same sort of thing for us on the 777, except for us it is FL350. Again,. during planning we do not go above it, but if a pac
26 Cptpilot737 : Thanks CX flyboy, finally an answer to my topic.
27 Sabenaboy : Huh, what do you mean? It looks to me like many others, including myself, have already answered you the exact same thing!! Also I'm amazed that a 737
28 Essentialpowr : No offense, but what Captain, let alone FO, has never flown with an MEL'd pack or had one trip off in flight?? It should be spelled out very definitel
29 Cptpilot737 : May be you will understand when you become a pilot instead of being a boy....
30 Sabenaboy : I agree! Well, I can say that I'm still as happy as only boys can be that I have been able to realise my boy's dream to sit in the left seat of an ai
31 EssentialPowr : Judging by the hostility of this response, combined with cpt737pilots apparent lack of comprehension of a common systems abnormality, makes me questi
32 Wing : Dear friends, I feel very sad about the one of the most informative and real life topics posted in to tech ops for a long time comes to this point. Es
33 Sabenaboy : Dear Wing, I do not contribute very much myself, but I do read a lot of the threads here on A.net. Your post are often very good, to the point and alw
34 EssentialPowr : I would add that judging anyone by their profile, or lack thereof, is an error. There are many people on this forum whose profiles are completely fals
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic One Pack Inop Dring Cruise, Shall Descent?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
A332 / Trent 772B SFC And Cruise Settings posted Tue Nov 28 2006 22:19:55 by ImperialAero
777 Cruise posted Tue Nov 14 2006 22:28:48 by Glom
BAe146 Descent posted Sun Sep 24 2006 00:56:05 by BAe146QT
Icao Category One/two posted Wed Aug 30 2006 08:18:23 by 411A
Marine One posted Thu Jul 20 2006 16:18:02 by NWOrientDC10
Slow Cruise Speed posted Sun Jul 16 2006 03:15:53 by Newark777
Air Force One! posted Fri Jul 14 2006 15:44:26 by YULYMX
Taking Off With Just One Engine posted Wed Jul 5 2006 00:05:22 by Hagic
GEnx, I Want One! posted Mon Jul 3 2006 07:34:28 by DreamsUnited
Start Low, Climb During Cruise, North Atlantic? posted Sun Jul 2 2006 16:36:55 by Julianuk

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format