For that HP Airbus Capt: Departing for an Atlantic Crossing

[Doug Taylor]

One of our lurkers, over dinner this evening, says there's never anything posted in here so I'm going to post a scenario!

So you're departing BCN, and about 2,000 feet, you have a right pack trip. A couple of resets are attempted, checklists are run and it looks like you'll only have one air conditioning pack operating for the trip.

And you're doing an Atlantic crossing.

Thoughts? Perspectives? Considerations?

[Screaming_Emu]

Originally Posted by Doug Taylor

One of our lurkers, over dinner this evening, says there's never anything posted in here so I'm going to post a scenario!

So you're departing BCN, and about 2,000 feet, you have a right pack trip. A couple of resets are attempted, checklists are run and it looks like you'll only have one air conditioning pack operating for the trip.

And you're doing an Atlantic crossing.

Thoughts? Perspectives? Considerations?

Is there an altitude restriction for single pack? Gotta think about that, change in fuel burn, winds, etc. That and something in the back of my head makes me not like the idea of operating single pack. Especially if I was going over the pond. Lose the other one and that's a long flight at low altitude (even more fuel burn to the divert).

[FlyChicaga]

Well, in our airplane a PACK trip means we need to descend to FL250 for the remainder of the trip. That, coupled with the fact Continental plans all their Europe flights at minimum fuel, I'd say return to your departure airport.

[rjmore]

Two packs in high flow and keep on truckin'!

[BobDDuck]

How many packs do you have on the 340? Or a 747 for that matter?

With only one left I'd be very wary of crossing the pond. As people have already said, if the other one was to die you'd be stuck at 10,000 for a divert which might make fuel an issue. Not to mention what ever caused the first pack to go could manifest itself somewhere else.

Are two good working packs a requirement for ETOPS? I'd doubt it but there are some very strange requirements that are part of that.

[surreal1221]

RTB baby.

[Cptnchia]

Originally Posted by Doug Taylor

And you're doing an Atlantic crossing.

Thoughts? Perspectives? Considerations?

What does the Theater Restriction Guide in the MDM say?

[jynxyjoe]

Just hold in the reset button in the whole trip.

[Orange Anchor]

Originally Posted by Doug Taylor

So you're departing BCN, and about 2,000 feet, you have a right pack trip. A couple of resets are attempted, checklists are run and it looks like you'll only have one air conditioning pack operating for the trip.

And you're doing an Atlantic crossing.

Thoughts? Perspectives? Considerations?

How many packs do you have? The -330 has two I believe.

Contact dispatch and see if they want to consider diverting to CDG or possibly LGW and put pax on other company flights.

Lose a pack just after takeoff and cross the pond? It is a bad start that can only carry increased risks. Lose the other one and you run into LOTS of problems including diverting to a non-maint base, stranding the pax, etc.

Cross the pond with only 1 pack which was lost just after takeoff? No.

[Doug Taylor]

Two packs, sir.

[Polar742]

Two engines is obviously an emergency situation. I'd have to turn right back around and land.

Now, if for some reason, I actually flew a twin across the water, and lost one of about anything, especially one of only 2 packs, I'd turn back to BCN and land. Or divert to MUC, or any other nice place to land. Then write up the jet and go to the hotel.

This, to me goes back to the whole redundancy is good thing.




If you have 2 of anything, and you lose one of them, not good. If you have 3 or 4 of something and you lose one, not so bad. Of course, the bean counters will whip out a graph that shows the slight increase of incomplete missions out weighing the expense of the whole 4 for longhaul deal. However, 1) I've yet to see an airline over time actually consistently make money from the operation;

2) said bean counter probably has never been over a long stretch of water, hours from an alternate, at night when important stuff has taken a holiday. There's a reason most guys have a "story" about that.

[rjmore]

Originally Posted by BobDDuck

How many packs do you have on the 340? Or a 747 for that matter?

With only one left I'd be very wary of crossing the pond. As people have already said, if the other one was to die you'd be stuck at 10,000 for a divert which might make fuel an issue. Not to mention what ever caused the first pack to go could manifest itself somewhere else.

Are two good working packs a requirement for ETOPS? I'd doubt it but there are some very strange requirements that are part of that.

The 747 has three packs. If one fails the other two stay in high flow for the rest of the flight but it isn't too big of a deal. We can lose pretty much one of anything and keep going without it being an emergency, including an engine. I've done a long haul with a pack MEL'd on the -400 and it wasn't a big deal, just more fuel burn.

[Polar742]

What rj said. Our penalty for a pack deferral is to add 1% to the burn. However, that figure is the same if we have perishables in the lower lobes with all 3 packs running. So really it's a .7 % penalty, which is still smaller than the penalty for flying more than 1000 feet from the "optimum" altitude.

[Orange Anchor]

Originally Posted by Doug Taylor

Two packs, sir.

Doing a risk/reward, there is too little upside and too large of a downside to continue across the pond.

I am doing background for a piece on MELs and CDLs. I went into the NASA database and was surprised at how many NASAs were filed because guys took airplanes that had MELs without understanding all the MEL or CDL included. AND crews operating equip that was MELed and placarded INOP. ??

for example, crew takes a 757 with a reverser inop. No big deal EXCEPT when you get airborne and see your destination runway REQUIRES both reversers due to runway conditions. Or crew takes airplane with inop forward galley, F/As tell Capt 'they work' and Capt tells 'em to go ahead and use it. ??? Or crew takes airplane with pack inop which limits cruise to FL250 and flies to destination in the mid 30s and informs maint the single pack was sufficient. ???

Sometimes you gotta wonder about reading and comprehension skills.

[Polar742]

Originally Posted by Orange Anchor

I am doing background for a piece on MELs and CDLs. I went into the NASA database and was surprised at how many NASAs were filed because guys took airplanes that had MELs without understanding all the MEL or CDL included. AND crews operating equip that was MELed and placarded INOP. ??

1)for example, crew takes a 757 with a reverser inop. No big deal EXCEPT when you get airborne and see your destination runway REQUIRES both reversers due to runway conditions.

2)Or crew takes airplane with inop forward galley, F/As tell Capt 'they work' and Capt tells 'em to go ahead and use it. ???

3)Or crew takes airplane with pack inop which limits cruise to FL250 and flies to destination in the mid 30s and informs maint the single pack was sufficient. ???

Sometimes you gotta wonder about reading and comprehension skills.

Number 2 is just plain dumb.

Numbers 1 and 3 - I wonder what part SOC played in that? As you know, there is a JOINT component in releasing a flight, and I feel many times that is overlooked. How many times has a release NOT been sent? I'd wager one would see more illegal/illogical releases than a release not sent. Obviously, this is only an issue with a company that operates with a required SOC.

At a previous employer, we would get releases for an MEL'd pack (resulting with a single pack operation) that would be flight planned above the altitude that was allowable for single pack operation (FL250).

Of course, inadvertently taking a release like that is bad, but then telling MX the airplane holds pressure just fine above 250 is just bad SA.

[Denny]

Mmm. Dinner! One pack? No way.

[Orange Anchor]

Originally Posted by Polar742

Number 2 is just plain dumb..

Lots of stuff you see in the database makes you scratch your head in wonder.

I think the 'go' attitude we (most aviators) have along with an attitude that we can get it done often works against us. There are lots of events we can do but the real question is should we do it. And that is even before we get to what is legal and what is smart.

A problem is an automatic caution sign to slow things down and verify what is going to happen. In training I watched some guys jump on problems with great speed and I remember in the military speed accomplishing a task was sometimes confused with competence. Likewise, in the sim, we would have an engine failure on a flt planned from say PHL to MIA. The focus would often be to run the checklist quickly and get the airplane on the ground IMMEDIATELY. Why? You have hours of fuel. But the tendency was to rush actions and rush decisions.

The term I am hearing now is to 'dis-confirm' (doncha love the stuff they make up) what you know or think you know. Is it really so? Most of the time we search for info that confirms what we know. Now a parallel is to search for info that dis-confirms what we think we know.

Anyway, with exception of smoke and fire, most events do not require a rush to decision.

And no, I am still not taking a wide-body twin across the pond with 1 pack. And no, the FAs can not use the fwd galley even if it seems to work but is placarded INOP.

[ChasenSFO]

What? No geshia girls fanning the passangers? Not an airline I'd want to fly on.

[Doug Taylor]

BTW, the "Airbus Captain" comment was from when I was having dinner with a US Airways (West) captain and I kept bugging him about lurking and not posting and he said he only read the "Ask A Captain" thread because he didn't want to argue with 20 year olds.

So I created a thread to entice him to post and, umm, nada.

[Polar742]

Originally Posted by Doug Taylor

He said he only read the "Ask A Captain" thread because he didn't want to argue with 20 year olds.

So I created a thread to entice him to post and, umm, nada.

That's a shame, there is a wealth of experience for me, and the rest of us to learn from, but the atmosphere on here isn't conducive to their posting.

If you're out there Mystery HP Captain, and any other guys/gals that have been around the block and have tales to tell and experiences to share, here's one 33 year old kid ready to soak it up....

[Doug Taylor]

Well, we're working on it!

It IS interesting how I'd get screamed at for our career-destroying scope clause during Contract 2000, but now some of those same screamers are demanding tight scope language in their own contract!

These be inter'essing times maing.

[Polar742]

Originally Posted by Doug Taylor

Well, we're working on it!

It IS interesting how I'd get screamed at for our career-destroying scope clause during Contract 2000, but now some of those same screamers are demanding tight scope language in their own contract!

These be inter'essing times maing.

If I had a clue what you were talking about in regards to contract 2k, I'd be all or or maybe even ....but mostly right now just

Aren't they always?

I've yet to study about or participate in stable times in the airline industry.

[Doug Taylor]

...and my warnings about planning on retiring from a regional, you know, all those unpopular topics I got lambasted about. What's ACA's 401k match again?

[BobDDuck]

Originally Posted by Polar742

If I had a clue what you were talking about in regards to contract 2k, I'd be all or or maybe even ....but mostly right now just

I'm thinking they were all like "they took our jjeeewwwbbs" and then they were all like "well they took our jjjjeeeeeetttsss". Or something like that.

[Polar742]

Is it an RJDC deal? I'm not aware much of Delta prior to '03.

I live in a very small world.

Apologies.