cptpilot737
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2005 7:29 pm

One Pack Inop Dring Cruise, Shall Descent?

Mon Feb 20, 2006 12:26 am

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 ......
 
User avatar
longhauler
Posts: 5043
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:00 am

One Pack Inop Dring Cruise, Shall Descent?

Mon Feb 20, 2006 12:44 am

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
Just because I stopped arguing, doesn't mean I think you are right. It just means I gave up!
 
Goldenshield
Posts: 5015
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2001 3:45 pm

One Pack Inop Dring Cruise, Shall Descent?

Mon Feb 20, 2006 12:51 am

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.
 
AAR90
Posts: 3140
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2000 11:51 am

One Pack Inop Dring Cruise, Shall Descent?

Mon Feb 20, 2006 12:54 am

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!
 
sabenapilot
Posts: 2442
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2000 6:18 pm

One Pack Inop Dring Cruise, Shall Descent?

Mon Feb 20, 2006 1:05 am

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]
 
nonfirm
Posts: 426
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 3:04 pm

One Pack Inop Dring Cruise, Shall Descent?

Tue Feb 21, 2006 5:39 am

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 avatar
zeke
Posts: 10107
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

One Pack Inop Dring Cruise, Shall Descent?

Tue Feb 21, 2006 2:39 pm

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
 
sabenapilot
Posts: 2442
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2000 6:18 pm

One Pack Inop Dring Cruise, Shall Descent?

Tue Feb 21, 2006 8:26 pm

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]
 
CosmicCruiser
Posts: 2049
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2005 3:01 am

One Pack Inop Dring Cruise, Shall Descent?

Tue Feb 21, 2006 10:28 pm

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.
 
Sabenaboy
Posts: 183
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2001 5:31 pm

One Pack Inop Dring Cruise, Shall Descent?

Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:14 am

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 avatar
Jetlagged
Posts: 2562
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 3:00 pm

One Pack Inop Dring Cruise, Shall Descent?

Wed Feb 22, 2006 1:03 am

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.
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

One Pack Inop Dring Cruise, Shall Descent?

Wed Feb 22, 2006 2:25 am

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 avatar
Jetlagged
Posts: 2562
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 3:00 pm

One Pack Inop Dring Cruise, Shall Descent?

Wed Feb 22, 2006 2:46 am

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.
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

One Pack Inop Dring Cruise, Shall Descent?

Wed Feb 22, 2006 3:37 am

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.
 
sabenapilot
Posts: 2442
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2000 6:18 pm

One Pack Inop Dring Cruise, Shall Descent?

Wed Feb 22, 2006 4:55 pm

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]
 
AAR90
Posts: 3140
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2000 11:51 am

One Pack Inop Dring Cruise, Shall Descent?

Thu Feb 23, 2006 7:52 pm

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!
 
CosmicCruiser
Posts: 2049
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2005 3:01 am

One Pack Inop Dring Cruise, Shall Descent?

Thu Feb 23, 2006 11:08 pm

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
 
OPNLguy
Posts: 11191
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 1999 11:29 am

One Pack Inop Dring Cruise, Shall Descent?

Thu Feb 23, 2006 11:34 pm

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.
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 10107
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

One Pack Inop Dring Cruise, Shall Descent?

Fri Feb 24, 2006 3:33 am

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
 
OPNLguy
Posts: 11191
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 1999 11:29 am

One Pack Inop Dring Cruise, Shall Descent?

Fri Feb 24, 2006 5:38 am

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".
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

One Pack Inop Dring Cruise, Shall Descent?

Fri Feb 24, 2006 2:01 pm

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.
 
OPNLguy
Posts: 11191
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 1999 11:29 am

One Pack Inop Dring Cruise, Shall Descent?

Fri Feb 24, 2006 2:27 pm

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...
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
nonfirm
Posts: 426
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 3:04 pm

One Pack Inop Dring Cruise, Shall Descent?

Fri Feb 24, 2006 6:13 pm

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 avatar
Jetlagged
Posts: 2562
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 3:00 pm

One Pack Inop Dring Cruise, Shall Descent?

Sat Feb 25, 2006 12:16 pm

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.
 
CosmicCruiser
Posts: 2049
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2005 3:01 am

One Pack Inop Dring Cruise, Shall Descent?

Sat Feb 25, 2006 12:33 pm

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?
 
CX Flyboy
Posts: 6056
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 1999 6:10 pm

One Pack Inop Dring Cruise, Shall Descent?

Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:53 pm

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 pack fails above FL350, then there is no requirement to descend.
 
cptpilot737
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2005 7:29 pm

One Pack Inop Dring Cruise, Shall Descent?

Mon Feb 27, 2006 12:27 am

Thanks CX flyboy, finally an answer to my topic.
 
Sabenaboy
Posts: 183
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2001 5:31 pm

One Pack Inop Dring Cruise, Shall Descent?

Mon Feb 27, 2006 3:27 am

Quoting Cptpilot737 (Reply 26):
Thanks CX flyboy, finally an answer to my topic.

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 captain has to come here to find an answer to what appears to be obvious. If in doubt, why didn't you look in your operator's MEL or ask your training department?

I apologize for criticizing you, but I think that by saying "finally an answer to my topic" you were not very polite towards all the others who took the time to reply and told you exactly the same thing!
 
EssentialPowr
Posts: 1646
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2000 10:30 pm

RE: One Pack Inop Dring Cruise, Shall Descent?

Sun Mar 05, 2006 5:09 am

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 definitely in the QRH anyway. If lost in flight, most QRHs will ref delta p and icing conditions, among other things. Come to think of it, that topic should be covered in ground school.

Hmmm...makes one think.
 
cptpilot737
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2005 7:29 pm

RE: One Pack Inop Dring Cruise, Shall Descent?

Tue Mar 07, 2006 4:12 pm

Quoting Sabenaboy (Reply 27):
Also I'm amazed that a 737 captain has to come here to find an answer to what appears to be obvious. If in doubt, why didn't you look in your operator's MEL or ask your training department?

May be you will understand when you become a pilot instead of being a boy....
 
Sabenaboy
Posts: 183
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2001 5:31 pm

RE: One Pack Inop Dring Cruise, Shall Descent?

Tue Mar 07, 2006 9:21 pm

Quoting Essentialpowr (Reply 28):
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 definitely in the QRH anyway. If lost in flight, most QRHs will ref delta p and icing conditions, among other things. Come to think of it, that topic should be covered in ground school.

Hmmm...makes one think.

I agree!

Quoting Cptpilot737 (Reply 29):
May be you will understand when you become a pilot instead of being a boy....

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 airliner (A320)
 
EssentialPowr
Posts: 1646
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2000 10:30 pm

RE: One Pack Inop Dring Cruise, Shall Descent?

Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:12 am

Quoting Cptpilot737 (Reply 29):
May be you will understand when you become a pilot instead of being a boy....

Judging by the hostility of this response, combined with cpt737pilots apparent lack of comprehension of a common systems abnormality, makes me question his profile...but Im just a boy!
 
wing
Posts: 1357
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2000 9:10 pm

RE: One Pack Inop Dring Cruise, Shall Descent?

Thu Mar 09, 2006 6:42 pm

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.

Quoting EssentialPowr (Reply 31):
Judging by the hostility of this response, combined with cpt737pilots apparent lack of comprehension of a common systems abnormality, makes me question his profile...

Essential power,

By looking from his profile I actually know and flew with cpt737(on date 13/12/2002 ),and yes he is actually a captain.From my experience he is a knowledgeable and polite person.I And he is a good flyer too,I hope I cleared your doubts about him.we also should all accept that this kinds of informative topics is what we need nowadays since the forum started repeating itself for a long time.His words may be a result of a misunderstanding or a result of being very tired after a long flight in the bad weather conditions around the environment we fly nowadays.

Quoting Cptpilot737 (Reply 29):
May be you will understand when you become a pilot instead of being a boy....



Quoting Cptpilot737 (Reply 26):
Thanks CX flyboy, finally an answer to my topic.

And little friendly advise to Cpt737,

Sabenaboy is also a knowledgeable(obviously because he is an airline pilot) contributor whom makes this site more readable, -since it started to be filled with "how do you fly an airplane" type childish posts-.

I think you will be a great addition to this site,but please note that "I know better than everybody,I am an astronaut "attitude which is very common in The Yellow tailed company doesn't work well anywhere other than that company.

As final words I would like to say,we should hang on to our professional contributors who makes the backbone of the forum,and we professionals must set a good example to the others.Best wishes.WING
follow me on my facebook page" captain wing's journey log"
 
Sabenaboy
Posts: 183
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2001 5:31 pm

RE: One Pack Inop Dring Cruise, Shall Descent?

Thu Mar 09, 2006 10:37 pm

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 always polite. Your answer above is just another one of those quality posts.

I am pleased to see that you come to defend one of your ex-collegues here, but when reading this,

Quoting Wing (Reply 32):
I think you will be a great addition to this site,but please note that "I know better than everybody,I am an astronaut "attitude which is very common in The Yellow tailed company doesn't work well anywhere other than that company.

it seems obvious that you are criticizing the attitude of some of the captains in "the yellow tailed company" (I know which company you mean)

Allow me to drift off topic:

I believe that the greatest risk in an airliner is a authoritative capt, with a bad attitude, who THINKS he knows it all and allows his copilot to speak only when he is asked for his opinion.

I'm glad to see that that kind of pilots is rapidly disappearing. Now what concerns Cptpilot737: I will take your word for it that he is usually a knowledgeable and polite person. He didn't really demonstrate that in this topic, though. But OK, I'll forget the stupid remark he made to me and give him credit for the future.

Quoting myself (Reply 27):
I apologize for criticizing you

At least I immediately did when writing reply 27. I admit I'm hoping for some kind of apology from him as well.

Regards,
Sabenaboy

PS: Welcome, Wing, to my respected users list.
 
EssentialPowr
Posts: 1646
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2000 10:30 pm

RE: One Pack Inop Dring Cruise, Shall Descent?

Fri Mar 10, 2006 3:52 pm

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 false, and as I have stated in the past I think it is interesting to challenge those posts and individuals.

I stand by my assessment of cptpilot737. The abnormality described in the original post would be very distinctly spelled out in any airline's QRH among other locations. Also, it is fairly common doctrine that if the pack is lost prior to FL250, the climb is typically prohibited. If above FL250, and pressure is maintained, then that altitude can be maintained. Others have stated this, but it amazes me that a "737 captain"

1. ignorant of this doctrine
2. comes here to learn it
3. insults someone that questions him

cheers-

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Phen and 24 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos