Emergency Descent - 36000'

[CloudsNSounds]

Fellas/Ladies,

Just a quick one to get your take on dealing with loss of cabin pressure at 36000'. I expect a lot of you browsing this forum have experience flying both military and civilian hardware and I'm looking for your perspective.

This is a second hand story from my father who was on board so the exact details are sketchy...

My parents were over France on a flight from Rome to Manchester this evening. Jet2.

The first my dad knew something was up was the Cabin Crew started to look concerned, looking at one of the cabin doors. They were on the phone a lot and then one of them started banging on the cockpit looking quite alarmed.

The next thing that happened was a very loud bang (the sound of the deploying oxygen masks, not an explosive depressurisation), the lights went off and then a very worried sounding captain or first officer almost screamed over the intercom "Emergency Descent" 5 or so times.

Panic obviously ensued as the plane bunted and dived for 10k. Oxygen masks full of dust and cobwebs and cabin crew looking like they were on the tower of terror and had little or no training (according to my angry Dad).

After the dive was over, the captain THEN explained that he had decided to deploy the oxygen masks manually and carry out an emergency descent. Based on advice from his airhosts or instrumentation I do not know, though anecdotal evidence of their reaction seems to suggest he may have acted independently.

I appreciate the above narrative lacks a lot of useful detail and I'm not looking for people to critique the captain's airmanship, mainly because by the letter of the law, getting down and letting the cabin crew know what was going on takes priority over not terrorising 150 odd unsuspecting passengers.

Have any of you had to rapid descend a big bird? If so, how drastic an emergency is it? If the crew consider there to be enough time to scream things like "emergency descent" over the intercom more than a few times do you disagree that there is time for them to take a few seconds for couple of choice words before exploding oxygen masks into passengers faces, killing the lights and bunting?

The first thing my dad said to me on the tarmac at Nice was "what would you have done?" to which I obviously responded with a Right Stuff Chuck Yeager line for the passengers. As I was not there and I have never been in that situation in a big jet this may very well be a bull%^&t answer...

What do you guys think?

[airbus_driver319]

It's a standard drill to be followed. Explaining to the passengers what is/has going on comes much later in the priority order.

The account you provided seems to mistake the Captain commanding his crew for panicking. (the wording over the PA will vary from airline to airline - but it is a command to the crew and not a passenger information announcement)

[Shytehawk]

This may answer your question:

http://flightdotcom.********.com/2012/05/time-of-useful-consciousness.html

[Shytehawk]

The link in my previous does not seem to be working. Google "Time of useful consciousness" and you will learn why speaking to the pax is way down the priority list.

[NSEU]

Do you know what sort of an airplane it was?

Cabin doors are usually of the plug type, so extremely unlikely of opening in flight.

The screaming sounds unnecessary, although, the Passenger Address system on this aircraft may have been put into a maximum volume mode automatically by the deployment of masks. Real decompressions may result in a lot of extra noise and this has to be compensated for, but, from your description, it doesn't sound like there was a real decompression. Also, most aircraft are fitted with automatic emergency decompression announcements. Ours are loud, and speak in a "commanding", not screaming voice. However, manual deployment may not trigger the announcements on this aircraft type.

I don't know why the lights went off. On the aircraft I'm familiar with, the lights should go full bright.

Oxygen mask deployment should not generate lots of dust and cobwebs, but again, this could be aircraft specific :} The compartments for holding the masks should be dust free, otherwise this might generate a fire.

There is insufficient information to comment on the airmanship. Rapid descents, however, would make things rather busy in the cockpit. You will be descending rapidly through various flight levels where other aircraft may be, so you need to communicate your intentions to Air Traffic Control as well as communicate with the passengers and crew. The flight crew may have chosen to stick to their formal company training/procedures rather than make a polite, long-winded announcement of their intentions (for the sake of safety).

Unfortunately, despite their training, cabin crew sometimes do react like normal human beings. This is another reason why you should listen to the safety briefings and read the safety card, not your newspaper ;) "Do as I say, rather than do as I do".

Anyway, an official report has to be made after such events. Eventually the full details will surface in the public domain.

Rgds

[framer]

Here is a generic emergency checklist for a Boeing in a situation that may well be similar to what your Dad found himself involved in that I grabbed off the net.
It may give you an idea of what the pilots were doing. Keep in mind that this is after they have decided that there is actually a pressurisation problem.




After doing that and deciding an emergency descent is in order;

Announce the emergency descent.

2 Passenger signs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ON

3 Without delay, descend to the lowest safe altitude or 10,000ft, whichever is higher.

4 ENGINE START switches (both) . . . . . . . . . CONT

5 Thrust levers (both) . . . . . . . . . Reduce thrust to minimum or as needed for anti-ice

6 Speedbrake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .FLIGHT DETENT

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The bit that says " announce the emergency descent" isn't left up to the whim of the Captain as to what he or she says, it will be something along the lines of .....funnily enough " emergency descent emergency descent emergency descent" . The announce doesn't just apply to the passengers and crew, while that is being done the other pilot will be announcing to ATC and other aircraft.
One reason that it may sound like the Captain is " screaming " the announcement is that earlier on you would have noticed that oxygen masks were donned, the mic is enclosed and close to the mouth and can have this effect when combined with a heart rate of 150bmp :)
This may or may not be what occurred on your Dads flight but I thought it might help you see the order of priority that things are generally carried out in and make it a bit more obvious that adding in the odd " Chuck Yeager PA " can disturb the flow of things.
Hope that helps.

[Flying Wild]

a very worried sounding captain or first officer almost screamed over the intercom "Emergency Descent" 5 or so times.

Things would be getting very busy up the front. An emergency descent is a fairly abrupt manoeuvre, so the captain would need to ensure that the cabin crew knew what was happening and could grab hold of something during the descent, hence a very loud announcement.

cabin crew looking like they were on the tower of terror and had little or no training (according to my angry Dad).

Bear in mind that although the cabin crew receive training for instances like this, the first time they would have experienced this for real was last night...

If the crew consider there to be enough time to scream things like "emergency descent" over the intercom more than a few times do you disagree that there is time for them to take a few seconds for couple of choice words before exploding oxygen masks into passengers faces, killing the lights and bunting?

Time of useful conciousness for a fit and healthy adult is 30-60 seconds at 35000 feet. This will be drastically reduced for your heavy drinking, 40 a day smoking adult, so the priority would be the safety of the aircraft and the passengers by descending.


Personally I think they did a good job getting everyone on the ground safely. It always surprises me how people are angry after the event...

[RedPortLeft]

Quick look on flightradar reveals it was G-GDFH and diverted to Nice.
But ... it happened very shortly after departure and never made it anywhere near 36000 ft

[RAT 5]

Expanding on the theme somewhat, but connected; I'm interested in sounding out opinion. This is a rare manoeuvre and I have my own ideas how to do certain aspects of it, based on real-life events: not my own. I've done it in the sim numerous times, somewhat like a trained monkey and I'd like to hear different pilots/companies opinions.

Whatever the scenario it becomes necessary to make an emergency descent. Do you:
1. Mayday ATC and inform them you need an E.D. and wait for a clearance?
2. Hurtle on down and THEN inform ATC what you are doing?

Second question.

Do you:

1.Maintain max ROD until 10,000'?
2.Maitain max ROD until e.g. 15,000' and then 1500fpm easing to 1000fpm about 12,000' till 10,000'?

I'll keep my ideas hidden and look forward to hearing yours. Please be objective.

Oh! and please don't forget TA Only BEFORE you descend otherwise a TCAS RA to reduce V/S could be triggered. That too is a little hidden gem and often not complied with. When Boeing was asked why it was not in their QRH checklist there was stoney silence. What about other types and airlines? It is a Eurocontrol recommendation and makes TCAS sense.

[de facto]

Oh! and please don't forget TA Only BEFORE you descend otherwise a TCAS RA to reduce V/S could be triggered. That too is a little hidden gem and often not complied with

Oh my god!
So much better to hit another aircraft than reducing your rate of descent.
Review the your aircraft oxygen time ....on the 737 its either 12 or 22 mins,on the 12 min uou can descend from 41000 to 17000 ft then level off for 5-6 minutes then to 10000 ft.
Beware of MSA higher than 10000 and temp correction...
Cncerning your emergency descent,
Whatever the scenario it becomes necessary to make an emergency descent. Do you:
1. Mayday ATC and inform them you need an E.D. and wait for a clearance?
2. Hurtle on down and THEN inform ATC what you are doing?

How many pilots in your aircraft?if more than one then one asks for descent while the other flies...you will get an answer very quickly,if not,broadcast on 121.5 and think of an offset if you are on an airway.


For the rate of descent,you use speedbrake and mmo/vmo (unless structural damage/then 280 kts and possibly gear down),for the level off just as your QRH says......

[con-pilot]

Whatever the scenario it becomes necessary to make an emergency descent. Do you:
1. Mayday ATC and inform them you need an E.D. and wait for a clearance?
2. Hurtle on down and THEN inform ATC what you are doing?


Concerning the emergency descent only:

1. Start emergency descent per AFM

2. Change transponder to 7700.*

3. Notify ATC, declare Mayday.

4. Checklist.

The above after donning the O2 masks obviously and some operators may have numbers 3 and 4 switched.

I've had four rapid decompressions, two in the 727 and two in a Lockheed Jetstar. Those were the procedures I followed, no issues with ATC about starting the emergency descent without notifying ATC before starting the emergency descent.

Follow the old adage of 'Fly first, talk later'.

Once I heard an American Airline aircraft that had to make an emergency descent, the first thing we and ATC heard was the FE reading the emergency descent checklist, pushed the wrong mic button. Only after the FE finished the checklist did they call ATC.

* In a radar controlled environment, 7700 will get the air traffic controllers instant attention.

[Kefuddle]

The first my dad knew something was up was the Cabin Crew started to look concerned, looking at one of the cabin doors. They were on the phone a lot and then one of them started banging on the cockpit looking quite alarmed.
Usually just a problem with the seal. Although the noise can be quite loud and disconcerting with the CC can be understandably concerned. But if the pressurization is normal (even if the door light is illuminated!), then all is well.

[MD83FO]

on the subject, should we ask ATC if they want us to squawk 7700?
remember many years ago on a visit to TRACON the controller asked a Delta to squawk it just to show me, and an EMERG tag replaced the whole data block losing the flight number.

[BARKINGMAD]

Ask ex-military aircrew who's done the advanced farting class at RAF North Luffenham or elsewhere, albeit under controlled conditions, and you might appreciate the priority is to get down to where the human brain can make sensible decisions with adequate O2.

Or maybe read the Helios accident report and ponder the ability of the advanced Bonobo chimp to survive in such a hostile (lack of) atmosphere?

Now that 737NGs and other craft are pottering around routinely at 41,000', please appreciate there's not a lot of time to fanny around whilst the cabin altitude rockets up to silly levels.

The adrenalin perceived in the F/Os voice is perfectly normal in such circumstances, even when being practised in the simulator, without the REAL fear associated with such an event.

Your relative is around to talk about it, for which we should rejoice?

[wiggy]

should we ask ATC if they want us to squawk 7700?

AFAIK ( in the UK anyway) squawking 7700 is definitely "a good thing" because it may well alert the controller(s) running in the adjacent (as in lower) sector that you're about to plunge into their airspace.

UK advice here:http://www.ead.eurocontrol.int/eadbasic/pamslight-174ACF6CA4E9804D47A59A499422E621/7FE5QZZF3FXUS/EN/AIC/P/138-2012/EG_Circ_2012_P_138_en_2012-11-01.pdf


In busy, highly sectorised airspace, controllers may adjust their situation displays to filter out aircraft in adjacent sectors, which will
be separated vertically or horizontally from aircraft in their own sector. This is done to prevent clutter on the controller’s display. Selection of
the emergency code 7700 will override the display filter and highlight to all controllers the emergency state of the aircraft, whether or not the
aircraft is in their sector (including vertically). This function allows controllers to act quickly in providing separation from an aircraft in
emergency descent as it passes through their sector. The prompt selection of 7700 is of paramount importance

[Love_joy]

Oh! and please don't forget TA Only BEFORE you descend

You wanna do WHAT??!

Come off it, below FL200 the decent is no longer critical, and below FL150 it's a bonus. Supplemental O2 makes this even better. Adjusting VS to avoid other bits of tin is ESSENTIAL.

Discussing the 7700 option last few times I've done this in the sim with my operator, we decided it was purely for bonus points. Rightly or wrongly.

Once established in the decent, safe, and on masks, you need to speak to ATC and get out your PAN/MAYDAY. If they subsequently want 7700, they will ask for it.

The thing about emergency descents is, they don't always ruin your day. A few that occurred in my company resulted in the flight continuing to destination, albeit at FL100. So it's a matter of balancing reason, damage, fuel burn, comfort, pax state, crew state, maintenance at dest etc etc...

As always in this game, it's safety vs commercial all the time. By if you don't have to land immediately, and 2 hours at FL100 is an option...... Just sayin

[NSEU]

Why the concern over selecting TA Only? (@ Lovejoy)

If you really have decompressed, and perhaps have suffered some kind of structural damage, you wouldn't want an RA telling you to climb or carry out some kind of radical high G manoeuvre. Wouldn't you leave the dodging to the most able aircraft?

[Capn Bloggs]

Based on the presented facts, a total overreaction. Locked doors cannot come open in flight. Deploy the masks just in case??

I've always been intrigued about this "announcing" the emergency descent. What is the point, apart from to your FO? What are the pax going to do apart from cr@p themselves (not having heard the term before)? What are the FAs going to do? Jump up and run around like headless chooks or simply grab a spare mask when/if one appears?

Given the manoeuvre should be smooth and be all over in a few minutes, surely the popping out of the masks (if indeed they do pop) will be enough "advice" to indicate to the masses in the cabin what is occurring and to do?

[RAT 5]

Why the concern over selecting TA Only?

If you really have decompressed, and perhaps have suffered some kind of structural damage, you wouldn't want an RA telling you to climb or carry out some kind of radical high G manoeuvre. Wouldn't you leave the dodging to the most able aircraft?

Firstly: it is a Eurocontrol specification. Secondly; with my limited knowledge of how TCAS really communicates in an intruder scenario: you are cruising relaxed in level flight. An intruder is hurtling towards you at high ROD. Who do you think will get the RA to move first? I suspect the high ROD will get an RA to 'reduce V/S'. I've asked the question to technical pilots and had no reply, hence my quest here. But, if it is true, my assumption, do you really want an RA telling you to adjust your Emergency descent?
Don't be jump down my throat too fast, I'm seeking the correct answer. In the decompressurised environment, with all the noise and reduced visibility, lousy crew communications etc. do you really want a moment of "what shall we do/confusion" telling you to reduce or stop your descent? Personally I doubt it. It is Oh so simple in the sim every 3 years; nice and clean and relaxed; but in anger I suspect very very different.

Regarding ATC clearance. As soon as you deviate 300' from assigned crz level radar screens will give an alert to ATC who will then start shouting at you to maintain level. You start shouting back with Maydays. Is this the best team work? What's the rush? There's enough O2. and you and pax should be on O2 before the E.D is commenced. I'd always thought good teamwork in an emergency required good communications. Does it really take more than a few seconds to include ATC in your scenario and then have a smooth relaxed executed manoeuvre with everybody knowing what's going on, with perhaps an ATC HDG change, rather than appear as a surprising bowling ball hurtling at skittles vertically below you and asking ATC to sort it out. There's no panic; and you could make a bad situation worse.

It's a discussion point guys. I don't believe there's black & white. There will be many diverse opinions. I wonder if the procedure in the jet age has been reviewed from operational historical data, and if it could be improved. Or has it been written in an office, tried in the sim and cast in stone forever?

Perhaps someone from ATC could contribute their opinions. They will be a major player in such a scenario. It will be interesting to know how they will react .

[de facto]

There's enough O2. and you and pax should be on O2 before the E.D is commenced. I'd always thought good teamwork in an emergency required good communications
Quite agree.

do you really want an RA telling you to adjust your Emergency descent?

Fine by me as long as im not frosting up:E
Is this the best team work? What's the rush

Good team work always start with proper SOP and crews being properly trained and implementing them if and when the day comes.
on the subject, should we ask ATC if they want us to squawk 7700?

If you are declaring an 'emergency descent' rather than a rapid descent due a slower loss of cabin pressure the squawking 7700 answer lies in the first word of your declaration..
Declaring is not requesting...you are telling them you are about to lose quite a few levels in the next 6 or so minutes rather than requesting their permission.

[AerocatS2A]

RAT 5, in part of your post you are suggesting that it's best to make a timely relaxed controlled descent with ATC in the loop but in the same breath you are suggesting that a TCAS RA would be a BAD thing.

In the decompressurised environment, with all the noise and reduced visibility, lousy crew communications etc. do you really want a moment of "what shall we do/confusion" telling you to reduce or stop your descent? Personally I doubt it.

Lets consider why a TCAS RA is telling you to reduce your VS. Presumably it is so you don't collide with another aircraft yes? Surely a reduction in VS to comply with an RA is far better than having a midair. Now you might say "why not let the other aircraft take evasive action?" What if both aircraft need to take action? Maybe one aircraft doesn't have the ability to avoid the other all by itself. What if the other aircraft has a degraded TCAS system? Or maybe they're flying with an engine shutdown and have their TCAS to TA as well.

[JeroenC]

In some companies they do not differentiate between rapid/explosive or subtle deco, only uncontrollable (or not), which leads to emo descent: PF: initiate descent; PM: simultaneously INFORM ATC, set TA only, squawk 7700.

[RAT 5]

As I understand it the Eurocontrol TCAS Review unit recommends that if you are flying a wounded bird, i.e. you have performance issues and do not want to receive an RA which requires an undesired manoeuvre, you should select TA Only. This will alert other a/c TCAS's that they will need to execute the avoiding RA. Seems quite simple and common sense to me. The only Boeing QRH that has this included is the Engine Failure/Loss of Thrust scenario. This is practised every 6 months in the sim and so everyone quotes it as the only occasion it is required. It might be their only experience of so doing. Ww do not always operate in a radar environment, remember.
Think about other scenarios where you do not want an RA requiring undesired manoeuvring. Jammed Flight controls: Stab trim problems requiring manual trim: Loss of HYD's = Manual reversion flight: Emergency Descent: Any flight control problem or thrust problem. There could be a whole host of them that should be at the crew's discretion. It is a tool to be used to help you survive the non-normal. If 2 a/c are conflicting I want to tell the other fella to get out of the way. How do I do that? TA Only. That's what it is for. It tells us that in the notes of the QRH SE case. Why does it not tell us that in other QRH's? Why are we not educated/encouraged to use airmanship and select it when needed to help us survive? Cast off the cloak of trained monkey and ask questions.
I quote the change in Boeing's advice on Stall recovery. Moons ago in basic training I was taught that a stall was an aerodynamic matter. it needed to be solved by aerodynamics. This includes basic physics. It was the same erect or inverted. Break the stall. Even an incipient stall it was the same basics. Boeings FCTM said Power & Reduce Attitude. I used to teach Reduce Attitude and increase Power that split second later. I did not know Boeing had changed the laws of aerodynamics. Reality stepped in and changed the philosophy. In other words questions were asked after an event (THY AMS) to see if improvements could be made, and they were. We are in an evolving environment where Mother Nature, Aerodynamics and Physics are always trying to tells us we shouldn't be there. We should not stop thinking and asking questions about how to improve our chances of the slaves defeating the lions. SOP's are not cast in stone; they should be an evolving living beast.
This is demonstrated by the many different ways airlines redefine the basic instruction manual of an a/c. They all do it differently yet all those different SOP's. They might all work, but they can't all be the best. They are adequate. I'm sure many have experienced every changing SOP's in an airline. Were they always for the better? How often have you changed companies, having flown with what you thought were excellent SOP's, only to learn new tricks and have the Ureka moment. I've done it a few times and in both directions: i.e. from crap to good and visa versa. Tit bits here and tit bits there. The brick walls I found trying to suggest improvements were as Jericho, but I didn't have any trumpets. We all survived, so that was the yard stick.
An open mind is a joy forever, but it brings some headaches from the blinkered.
I leave you to debate it out.

[Capn Bloggs]

Very good, RAT 5. :D

[pigboat]

I'm curious as to why the airplane bunted. Shirley on an emergency descent you first crank in bank to induce positive gee as well as turn off the airway for the descent, non?

[captjns]

The primary purpose of notifying ATC of the impending emergency descent so they can clear the way for you and advise of the MORCA in the area and direction of the descent. I've had one in the good old 727 years ago. ATC provided me with a heading to avoid traffic and possible obstructions that would prevent descent to below 15,000'.

TXP to TA??? bonus points. However with the ambient noise, I doubt we would have heard any TA's let alone any RA's:eek:.

[felixthecat]

First get your O2 on ASAP…..then give yourself a few seconds to access the situation and get the pax O2 on too. There is no need to turn an emergency into a crisis by doing the wrong thing in a blind furry of selections. Once the O2 is on you have the best part of 22 mins (type specific) to get the aircraft down to below 10K. Once the O2 is on the absolute emergency is contained.

Aviate, Navigate, Communicate….that old bugbear.

I am often over very high terrain and limited in my decent due to the terrain and my escape routes at times can mean I would be pushing towards 22 mins before being able to get the aircraft to below 10k, so conversely in this instance where terrain is not limiting just because I can do an emergency decent to 10K why the absolute rush.

Im not saying chill out and have a coffee but more haste less speed……be expeditious not rushed.

[Ian W]

What everyone should realize is that ATC is not just one person. You may be flying along quite happily at FL410 in the high level sector, but below that may be multiple low level sectors - say FL280 - FL350 and FL180-FL270 and 6000ft - 1800ft - then there will be multiple sector boundaries that may not match the high level sector boundaries. So when your emergency hits you will talk to the current high level sector controller who is going to first deconflict you from aircraft below (you should of course have situational awareness on traffic immediately below and around you no? :bored: ) Then the controller will need to set up the transfer of your aircraft to the next control sector below his and possibly the one below that this takes a lot of talking especially if they have no hint that there is an emergency - they may not even rapidly answer his line.

This is because controllers may have filtered their displays so they don't see traffic outside the vertical boundaries of their sector. If you do NOT put 7700 on the controller in the sector below the one that you are in cannot see you unless the current controller 'points out' your flight in some way (often electronic) but he's also busy talking to aircraft that you may be about to hit.

It really makes total sense for the pilot not flying to select 7700 as soon as possible - then you don't have to tell ATC anything as that 77 breaks through all filtering and all sector controllers will immediately start clearing your path especially when they see your Mode C winding down. They also know not to start telling you about your uncleared level changes or turns as they realize that you are handling an emergency and that communicate comes last. Often controllers will start clearing other aircraft off the frequency to ensure that they can handle your problems.

The 7700 also flags in all supervisor positions including those in other centers and control facilities allowing the entire ATC provision to ramp up ready to assist in any way possible and other controllers will stop doing hand offs to the affected sector(s) etc etc. All that takes is selection of 7700 so don't hesitate to do it and don't hesitate to call MAYDAY (it does concentrate the controllers' minds) you can always downgrade the emergency to PAN once you are level at 10,000ft and handling seems OK etc.

[RAT 5]

Guys: it seems there is some agreement to try and include ATC as a team player in this scenario. Sadly there has not been too many ATC opinions on this thread. More sadly, is every airline I've flown for, who ticks the boxes every 3 years in the sim with an Emergency Descent, is not receptive to ANY discussion about the real world in the execution of this critical manoeuvre. It is always, quite simply, an isolated blinkered hurtle down from whatever crz FL to 10,000' and sod everyone else. Tick in the box. I find this very unprofessional. Why can the XAA's and other relevant institutions not open their minds and review the dogma?
I doubt that every airline has the same SOP's; perhaps I'm wrong, but I would have though this should be a worldwide acceptable manoeuvre independent of type for the fundamentals: i.e. it should be an ICAO SOP worldwide. No doubt it will take a smoking hole to awaken other thoughts. Happened before.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

More than likely two holes.

[ManaAdaSystem]

The objective of an emergency descent is to bring the aircraft down to 10 000 ft as fast as possible.
Why? At 41000 ft you have some 10-15 seconds before you pass out. Then the clock is ticking towards brain damage.
Start the emergency descent while you declare and squawk emergency. Any advice after this point from ATC is very welcomed, but I will not start a debate with ATC before I start to go down. There is no time for that.

[ManaAdaSystem]

Sorry, I'm not smart enough to understand what you are, or have been trying to say.

[Natstrackalpha]

I've always been intrigued about this "announcing" the emergency descent. What is the point,

well, there are people walking around the cabin, there are trollies in the aisles, there is hot coffee in the pots, there are children aboard the plane - there are old ladies tottering to the loo, how many other reasons do you want . . !?!? - there are quite a few freight jobs around:ok:

[Capn Bloggs]

... there are people walking around the cabin, there are trollies in the aisles, there is hot coffee in the pots, there are children aboard the plane - there are old ladies tottering to the loo, how many other reasons do you want . . !?!?

So what? What do you expect those you mentioned do? And do I then wait until they are all "organised" before I actually do anything? Judging by your concerns, and as I mentioned before, none of the pax have heard of the term "Emergency Descent"...it's certainly not mentioned in the pax brief...I would be better off announcing "stop what you're doing and hang on! Big rough dive coming shortly!".

Besides, as with a TCAS RA response, an Emergency Descent is a smooth, controlled manoeuvre that will not skittle anybody in the cabin, including trolleys. You freight dogs might chuck the aeroplane around, but I don't. :ok:

[rjay259]

Straight copy from my company's QRH.

Emergency Descent <>

Condition: One or more of these occur: •Cabin pressure cannot be controlled when the airplane is above 14,000 feet •A rapid descent is needed.

1 Announce the emergency descent. PF will announce "CABIN CREW RAPID DESCENT, RAPID DESCENT" on the PA. The PM will set 7700 on the transponder, advise ATC and obtain the area altimeter setting.

2 Passenger signs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ON

3 Without delay, descend to the lowest safe altitude, or 10,000 feet, whichever is higher.

4 ENGINE START switches (both) . . . . . . . . . CONT

5 Thrust levers (both) . . . . . . . . . Reduce thrust to minimum or as needed for anti-ice

Autopilot and autothrottle should remain engaged.

6 Speedbrake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .FLIGHT DETENT

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
If structural integrity is in doubt, limit speed as much as possible and avoid high maneuvering loads.

7 Set target speed to Mmo/Vmo.

8 When approaching the level off altitude:

Smoothly lower the SPEED BRAKE lever to the DOWN detent and level off. Add thrust and stabilize on altitude and airspeed.

9 Crew oxygen regulators . . . . . . . . . . . . . Normal

Flight crew must use oxygen when cabin altitude is above 10,000 feet. To conserve oxygen, move the regulator to Normal.

10 ENGINE START switches (both) . . . . . .As needed

11 The new course of action is based on weather, oxygen, fuel remaining and available airports. Use of long range cruise may be needed.

■ ■ ■ ■

Interesting point from RAT5, the TCAS we have has above and below, while in the cruise it is set to below, give us the ability to see down 6500'ish,
Will be something I will put to the fleet office for their reason not to set TA only.

[763 jock]

While your at it, get them to change No 1. Should surely be O2 on!

[Capn Bloggs]

While your at it, get them to change No 1. Should surely be O2 on!
That would already have been covered by the "Cabin Hi Altitude" procedure Memory item.

[rjay259]

Yes this is just the emergency descent cx,
The cabin depressurisation cx is another one,

[A and C]

A few years back when in the cruise at FL410 I had a left pack trip off, just as the power was coming back at top of descent & cleared down to FL330 the right pack tripped off.

Within seconds I got the left pack online, the first officer asked for decent to FL100, then I ran the drill for getting the right pack back on line the left pack tripped off line !

By now the FO had the aircraft in a rapid descent and I got the right pack on line and we continued down to FL100.

At no time did the cabin altitude exceed 8000 ft or the cabin rate of climb exceed 300 ft/ min.

Once the right pack had demonstrated that it was staying on line I had time to brief the cabin crew but the passengers were clueless as to the goings on and did not realise that we had in effect made an emergency descent from FL410 to FL100.

I did as the problem started say to the FO that if I loose control of the cabin PX it was to be masks on and full emergency decent drills and in my mind had set a cabin ROC of 800 ft/ min to trigger this action.

So from this I have concluded that passengers only plummet towards the ground if they know that they are in an emergency descent or the newspapers tell them so and the descent it's self alone is not enought to merit comment from passengers.

Lets not make a drama out of a non crisis.

[RAT 5]

I'm still curious about the hurtle at max ROD to 10,000'. Many of you go ski-ing at 12,000' That's arduous exercise. The auto pax O2 comes on at 14,000', so it is thought they're not going to die between 10 & 14,000'. So why are we encouraged to max it down to 10,000? I repeat, in real life ear drums have been burst by just such action. A max descent to 14,000' can be argued for, but surely a more relaxed 1500fpm to 12,000' and then 1000fpm to 10,000' will be more than adequate. No-on is going to suffer O2 starvation in this manner, but it could well save severe health damage to anyone on board, and that includes the crew. A ruptured ear drum is an incapacitation due to excruciating pain. I
I suspect this has been a left over from unpressurised a/c days, who were restricted to 10,000 crz, and also the ROD capabilities of older a/c and their O2 systems. I wonder if there has ever been a re-think. Like many things in our environment it often takes 'an event' to bring change. I still question things in the QRH, and guess what, over the years much has changed in them. They are not tablets of stone.

[BOAC]

Quite right, Rat - indeed, risking heresy here, a rapid descent even to 20k and then more 'sedate' is going to be fine - look at the times of useful consciousness at 20, and as long as the drivers are on Oxy, a few dizzy pax would not be a major problem.

[Meikleour]

BOAC: Is not the problem not with the aircrew but with the passengers who are only supplied with supplemental O2 rather than O2 under pressure for the crew.
Any extended delay with a cabin altitude above 30,000ft. will be very bad for the passengers no matter how quickly they done the drop down masks. Thus the priority is to get the cabin altitude below 30,000ft.

[BOAC]

Any extended delay with a cabin altitude above 30,000ft. will be very bad for the passengers no matter how quickly they done the drop down masks. Thus the priority is to get the cabin altitude below 30,000ft. - read my post again?

[JOSHUA]

For what it's worth I agree with BOAC, however in today's worlds of strict SOP's and less opportunity to demonstrate good airmanship, I imagine da management would have something to say about not executing a rapid descent to 10000 or within a few thousand feet of MSA if that were higher....

[BOAC]

Yes, but I think Rat's point was is this 'box-ticking' or do we have a quiet think about it? After all, suppose you had an 'unavoidable' MSA of 15,000' the pax will not 'die'. They may be a bit light-headed, and cabin crew probably need to be taken care of here with bottled oxy, but that would be all.

[Meikleour]

BOAC: I was agreeing with you! I simply wanted to make the point that some of the other posters seemed to imply that there was no great rush to get down once "the crew were on O2" no matter how high the cruising altitude was.

[BOAC]

BOAC: I was agreeing with you! - ok then, it just didn't read that way!

To clarify, and I cannot recall my RAF decompression training now, but I think somewhere between 15 and 30 minutes of 'awake' at 20k without O2 and a heck of a lot longer alive, so no great rush in reality.

[HazelNuts39]

Excuse my ignorance, but what do you gain by slowing down the rate of descent?

[BOAC]

See Rat post #41

[framer]

I repeat, in real life ear drums have been burst by just such action.
I guess question has to be where does the the greatest risk lie?
Which is more likely? That a passenger or crew member bursts an eardrum or that someone is adversely affected by spending more time at a slightly higher altitude ?
It's not immediately obvious to me which is more likely but after thinking about it I think it's more likely that someone will suffer from a lack of oxygen. My reasoning is that I have dropped thousands of people out of aircraft who descend at about 10,000 fpm and I can't remember anyone bursting an eardrum, yet once a month or so someone on one of my flights requires oxygen because their body isn't coping with extended periods at 8000ft. So I think there is a higher chance of having passengers on board who would not cope with being at 12, 13 or 14,000ft, than of someone bursting an eardrum.
Does anyone have any examples or stats on burst eardrums during emergency descents?

[RAT 5]

I doubt the sky divers would be jumping if they had a cold. Many pax, even crew, fly when they have a slight cold. The auto cabin rate of descent can just about be survived with some nose blowing and swallowing. Sit next to a child who has not been taught this technique and watch their parents teaching them. Perhaps this was why in the olden days they used to dish out sweets at TOD. Anyway, having been in an a/c with a screaming pax who had a cold and whose head started to explode below 10,000' I've seen the result. Out of 100's of pax & crew i can be confident someone is likely to have dodgy ear tubes for whatever reason. Slowing down the ROD passing 14,000' should have no negative O2 effects on anyone.

[framer]

I thought about that Rat but the cold scenario also impacts on the passengers ability transfer O2 in their lungs so I thought it cancelled out the argument to a degree. I'm not hard and fast on my opinion here, I just thought it worth while seeing if there were any examples in the real world of the eardrum burst. There are certainly many everyday examples of 8000ft cabin altitude being too much for some.
If you take those people who are not good at transferring O2 with reduced pressure, ( they're old, have a cold, smokers etc) and then give them 5-10 seconds of severely reduced pressure while they don their masks, then expose them to 13 or 14,000ft for a few minutes, I think you may well have some people in need of attention ( medical O2 ) from the cabin crew.

Of the examples of burst eardrums, how many burst as the air escaped their sinuses as opposed to bursting in the last 4000ft of descent as the thicker air entered their sinuses?
It's an interesting discussion.

[framer]

To clarify, and I cannot recall my RAF decompression training now, but I think somewhere between 15 and 30 minutes of 'awake' at 20k without O2 and a heck of a lot longer alive, so no great rush in reality.
A heck of a lot longer is right.
Just for interests sake, all the passengers on Helios 522 were alive when the hit the ground and that had been hours at thirty something.

[BOAC]

My take on Rat's original question was more "let's talk about it and see if there can be a shift in emphasis" on Emergency Descents rather than getting into minutiae about ToUC, colds, skydivers etc etc.

It is, as he implies, very much a 'box ticking exercise' as it stands.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

A heck of a lot longer is right.
Just for interests sake, all the passengers on Helios 522 were alive when the hit the ground and that had been hours at thirty something.

Weeeell, the lights may have been on but I'd doubt anyone was home.

[BOAC]

Whoa! No-one is talking about cruising at 30k for 3 hours!! RAT asked why we scream straight down to 10k rather than, say, 14k and ease off.

[dkz]

If you take those people who are not good at transferring O2 with reduced pressure, ( they're old, have a cold, smokers etc) and then give them 5-10 seconds of severely reduced pressure while they don their masks, then expose them to 13 or 14,000ft for a few minutes, I think you may well have some people in need of attention ( medical O2 ) from the cabin crew.

Probably the only benefit one can ever get from smoking is better tolerance to hipoxia / better survival rate with low O2.

Comparisons of altitude tolerance an... [Aviat Space Environ Med. 1997] - PubMed - NCBI (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9293349)

[neilki]

Helios was a tragedy, a classic case of Swiss cheese. i'm still shocked the crew missed the pressure controls set to manual & failed to appreciate the very loud warning. Poor Systems knowledge rears its head again, with a dirty look in Seattle’s (Sorry, South Carolina) direction for using one horn for multiple warnings. -However, the fact everyone was alive highlights the problem -time of useful consciousness .
As far as the OP's father complaining about 'dust' in the masks; that is intentional and part of the engineering to ensure the masks do actually deploy. (it's called French Chalk)
An emergency decent is a well-rehearsed maneuver that (like a TCAS RA) requires positive but not 'panicked' response. Sounds like everything worked as planned; though i'm surprised no one’s raised the 'turn off the airway' chestnut....

[Idle Reverse]

Quote : " surprised no one has raised the 'turn off the airway' chestnut.... "


Not in UK airspace of course . . . :ooh:

[deltahotel]

Thoughts.

Any time above 25000' cabin alt is bad, because above that there is a real chance of decompression sickness (BOAC - remember bends, chokes, creeps, staggers from the N Luffenham advanced farting course?) and any sub aqua fans on here know what decompression sickness means.

If you're not sure about 'structural damage' leave the IAS alone - you'll still get 4000fpm down (at least) and yr aiming for 10000' (so no more than 10 mins downwards), where the partial pressure of O2 is half that of sea level so a good place to be and not coincidentally the RAF limit of unpressurised flight.

Slow and methodical is good when it comes to initiating the descent - no prizes for rushing and getting it wrong; another 20sec won't hurt.

Don't ignore RA - the other guy won't and you get no more points (and therefore no more prizes) for an immaculate emergency descent which writes off two ac.

Pax comms (sorry OP) is the last thing to consider. Once it's all done (the 'and relax' moment) is the time to explain - let's hope all the pax have had the courtesy to listen to the briefing properly and when the masks descend "pull sharply etc etc etc". But if they haven't the chances are that they'll have fallen asleep and will wake up pretty quickly once at 10000'. On the other hand, if they haven't listened and yr over some seriously high ground they might not. SO PAX - listen to what the cabin crew tell you in the briefing.

Just my 2p worth - hope it helps

[framer]

My take on Rat's original question was more "let's talk about it and see if there can be a shift in emphasis" on Emergency Descents rather than getting into minutiae about ToUC, colds, skydivers etc etc.
That's what I was doing, I think it's a very valid point Rat has brought up so was trying to get to the nuts and bolts of where the greatest risk lies.
Weeeell, the lights may have been on but I'd doubt anyone was home.
For sure, that's why I prefaced the comment with " for interests sake".
Most pilots I have chatted to about the accident are surprised to learn that the pax were still alive. It's interesting in my book, I meant nothing more.
Whoa! No-one is talking about cruising at 30k for 3 hours!! RAT asked why we scream straight down to 10k rather than, say, 14k and ease off.
I understand that and addressed Rats main point clearly. As I said above, the reference to Helios was purely a point of interest. I'll try to be more clear with my wording in the future.

[framer]

This is the crux of Rat's point;
So why are we encouraged to max it down to 10,000? I repeat, in real life ear drums have been burst by just such action. A max descent to 14,000' can be argued for, but surely a more relaxed 1500fpm to 12,000' and then 1000fpm to 10,000' will be more than adequate.
I think it's worthwhile to examine it and take it slightly beyond being just an opinion so I asked where does the the greatest risk lie?
and Does anyone have any examples or stats on burst eardrums during emergency descents? in one post. I didn't get an answer so in my next post I wrote
I just thought it worth while seeing if there were any examples in the real world of the eardrum burst.
and Of the examples of burst eardrums, how many burst as the air escaped their sinuses as opposed to bursting in the last 4000ft of descent as the thicker air entered their sinuses?
The questions and statements above that I made haven't really been addressed. That's fine, I was just hoping to take it beyond individual opinions and preferences and get some more detailed information so that we could debate based on that.
I'm still keen to do that because, like I said, I think Rat has raised an interesting subject.

[bubbers44]

The B737 take off warning horn being used as a cabin altitude high warning is confusing. I had it happen to me on an idle descent with one pack inop and an equipment cooling valve stuck open. It took a few seconds to realize the dual purpose since we have all heard the take off warning when advancing throttles to taxi with flaps up but never for the alt. warning. We advanced the power and put the second pack on to get everything back to normal. The Athens flight I am sure had the same problem identifying what the warning was for.

[BOAC]

deltahotel - "Any time above 25000' cabin alt is bad,". I do remember North Luffenham etc, and I did actually have the odd 'decompression pain' in my joints after several long (boring) un-press details at 30k in the JP3/4.

I think you have summed it (and, I think, Rat's point) up well. I have always thought the sim exercise was just a synthetic 'mad scramble' (though useful for initial drills etc), and I had often wondered about how I would have handled such with bomb damage. There one would surely accept pax and c/crew oxy problems for the sake of keeping the aircraft in as few pieces as possible?

framer - all noted and understood, but I do think we need to look at the 'bigger picture' and ask why we always just 'scream down' rather than worry about eardrums and the like? Every foot lost from cruise altitude is a bonus in oxy terms. The question is, of course, now complicated by the higher cruise levels in use and there does remain the need to vacate those as expeditiously as possible. In real terms, below about 20k, the panic is over. Having been up to 18k 'without', I know the effects of hypoxia will be there, but one can still function. There is a risk that those with 'degraded' body oxy functions might lose consciousness but I suspect that would be all they suffered for the short time taken going lower. I assume Concorde did not have 'pressurised' masks for pax, so it would have been an interesting scenario indeed from around 50k+.

[BARKINGMAD]

How many companies ask one to demo this in the sim, assuming the other crewmember is trousers-down in the toilet when the explosive event happens, NO PUN INTENDED!

Worth thinking how we'd do all the bits solo, assuming mask on etc?

One day it may happen..............................?! :ouch:

[framer]

There is a risk that those with 'degraded' body oxy functions might lose consciousness but I suspect that would be all they suffered for the short time taken going lower.
I agree.
What I am wanting to do is weigh that risk against the risk of other injuries to the passengers ( burst eardrum was the example given) and then decide now, from the comfort of my lounge room chair, whether or not to modify how I plan to fly an emergency descent due depressurisation.
The unconscious pax ( and associated workload for cabin crew) that you mentioned above would be hard to justify if there is no real world examples of injuries to pax caused by maintaining a high ROD between 14,0000ft and 10,000ft.
Righto, time to go to work.
Hope you guys are having a nice day up north.

[BOAC]

Righto, time to go to work. - ugh! Night flight..............

I think for 'personal career safety' we would need a sea change at regulatory level to "modify how I plan to fly an emergency descent due depressurisation.". It will be a brave man/woman who demonstrates a 'non-standard box ticking' in the sim:)

Thanks for the wishes. Summer may just have arrived 'oop north'. Hope the duty went well.

Good topic, Rat!

[RAT 5]

Quote : " surprised no one has raised the 'turn off the airway' chestnut.... "

Don't ignore RA - the other guy won't and you get no more points (and therefore no more prizes) for an immaculate emergency descent which writes off two ac.

Which is exactly why, as has been mentioned here, and extra 20secs to let ATC join the team and be a major player, is a good idea. They may well have a nice escape route planned for you as soon as they hear MAYDAY. It might not be a straight ahead or a turn off, but a series of zig zags while they clear other a/c out of the way. In the sim it is always just straight ahead or 45 degrees off, in a straight line and plunge to 10,000'. Not much of a learning exercise.

As for the RA, that is why Eurocontrol advocate TA only. It should not happen.

I think we've done it to termination and the point now is that the old method might need reviewing. But, again, until a major incident I doubt it will happen; there is no incentive.

[Natstrackalpha]

" surprised no one has raised the 'turn off the airway' chestnut.... "

at 90 degrees to the airway?

[Capn Bloggs]

at 90 degrees to the airway?
Not necessary. With GPS accuracy, all that is needed is "select" a 45° heading change (helps get the nose down too) then immediately back to parallel the magenta line. Nicely offset from opposite direction traffic (if it is a two-way airway). IOW, quick-setup SLOP.

[NEWYEAR]

As you say, at the beginning post nº 1, it was not an explosive depressurization but readings in cockpit made think about a problem in relation to pressurization. In my opinion... and some QRH says...First of all, Pilots should have tried a manual control to keep the presurization before carrying out an emeregency descent.
You can control and adjust the presurization manually. After that, controling in manual mode you can consider leave FL 360 to FL 130 bearing in mind your fuel and weather conditions for the following miles to destination. However, I wouldn´t leave FL360 if I can adjust the presurization system, manually.

[RAT 5]

Of course: a pressurisation problem does not mean an E.D. An RTO does not mean a Pax Evac. Same philosophy. Simulatoritis. It can often be a bad thing.

[Natstrackalpha]

I think we've done it to termination and the point now is that the old method might need reviewing. But, again, until a major incident I doubt it will happen; there is no incentive.

. .there is. Collectively you have all done a good job here.
The review you mention is in place and a `work` package is being put together by ICAO and all associated xAAs. The resultant factor should be 2014 - which is better than nothing, I suppose.

[RAT 5]

Adding another element to this discussion: firstly I am pleased a review is under way, I seek further opinions on this question.

My QRH instructs me to descend to "10,000ft or MSA which-ever is higher." It is emphasised that crew O2 is necessary above 10,000'. (not for the expendable pax). I ask, why restrict your descent to 10,000'? If the MSA is a very common <5000' why not continue to a lower level where O2 is more abundant? Surely that's better?
[LIST]I was doing the 3 year tick in the box and I descended to FL80, with TL 70 and MSA 2500'. The cabin was <10,000' so we could remove O2 masks. We were in controlled airspace above TL, so I surmised that ATC would require us to fly in 1013 for a/c separation. To fly on QNH would create a threat of RA's etc.
No! I was told this was wrong as the QRH said 10,000' of MSA 'which ever was HIGHER'; AND it must be on QNH.

Please, an ATCO, please tell me you would not welcome us flying around in your airway on QNH. Please tell me I'm not crazy and I can have my sanity back. Please tell me this is QRH PC gone mad.

[MrHorgy]

If I can add my two-penneth as well..

...Why 10,000 feet? In the US and areas where the TL is 18,000 as standard I can understand, but until Europe is brought in line with other countries why don't we descend to FL100, or FL90? I imagine the selection of FL90, especially in the UK, is more helpful to ATC rather than flying around at some equivalent to FL93 and screwing up their RVSM separation. Even if the QNH is 980 you are protected at FL90 from reaching a cab alt above 10,000"?

Just something i've been mulling over..

EDIT: Just realised RAT 5 has written a similiar point to mine - ATC input would be interesting.

[RAT 5]

The 18,000' TA in USA was my first solution to the 10,000' command in QRH. In USA it does not cause a problem. When I tried, via my training dept., to voice this question to Boeing and XAA's it was met with deaf ears. So there we are in the sim training something that is unrealistic and XAA's don't seem to care, neither did HOT. To be told it was WRONG to descend to FL80 was the last straw and confirmation that the loonies had taken over the place.
The USA might thing it rules the world. but not outside US airspace.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

I wonder if its just something as simple as maximising range once you've descending to a survivable altitude. Of course that doesn't matter over the middle of Europe but, mid Atlantic it might make a difference. Of course, if that's the case why not higher.

Rat5, I wonder how you're instructor expected you to land if you weren't supposed to go below FL100!

[Loose rivets]

Being peppered with bits of molten glass encourages one to turn off windshield heating. Seeing splits spreading through the glass gives a broad spectrum of encouragements.

Last one for me was 34k over Zagreb one night. 15,000' was as far as we could bomb down without real navigation. With the glass breaking up the VSI was against the bottom stop in the time it took to make panicky noises at the passengers. :hmm:

[NEWYEAR]

Obviously, Oxygen (O2) is important.
Some QRHs use MEA instead of 10.000 or MSA. Others...consider at least FL130 "as a the top" because it is the FL or altitude in which you can avoid an automatic deployed of masks and also be able to breath and save fuel for a while...
In adition to this, crew must contact to ATC. Notify ATC and request whatever you need.

[wiggy]

Some QRHs use MEA instead of 10.000 or MSA. Others...consider at least FL130 "as a the top" because it is the FL or altitude in which you can avoid an automatic deployed of masks and also be able to breath and save fuel for a while...


...And just to add to the mix on some types it's 15000' or MSA, whichever higher....

As LSM has said:

its just something as simple as maximising range once you've descending to a survivable altitude. Of course that doesn't matter over the middle of Europe but, mid Atlantic it might make a difference

[RAT 5]

Guys, Of course I understand about maximising range for the next phase etc. etc. My simple comment was I was told it was wrong to descend below 10,000' in what ever circumstance. I was also told I had to fly on QNH in the airway system and that FL 90 was wrong.
I call all these things into doubt on airmanship and ATC grounds.

[BOAC]

Quite honestly these issues of RVSM/traffic separation are red herrings. We have the need to descend rapidly. As long as we stop at a safe height, our MAYDAY should have ensured that other traffic has been 'tidied away' as well as possible. Once the 'immediate emergency is over, then we can all sort out altimeter settings to suit ATC.

[RAT 5]

our MAYDAY should have ensured that other traffic has been 'tidied away'

This brings the whole debate full circle. I'm still having non-conclusive discussions with other trainers: and I don't want to take this topic back to the beginning, again. Other traffic might have been tided away if you are in a radar environment, they act promptly and you wait for an ATC clearance before you leave your cleared level. (this brought about the whole debate about TA only). If you hurtle out of the sky and cause ATC's collision avoidance bells & whistles to activate then the other traffic will not have been tided away and a further mess will be ensuing.

I agree that later on liaison with ATC can sort out the hp issue, but my main point is that I've been told it is wrong to take the initiative and level at FL. The QRH says 10,000' = regional QNH. That is what I question and I hate having to teach such an SOP which seems questionable on airmanship & safety grounds.

[BOAC]

Back to my point - use the best QNH if there is terrain doubt. If you are over the ocean/etc 1013/2992 will be fine. There is plenty of time (minutes) to change from STD. Re 'Hurtling out of the sky'/bells and whistles - only a temporary problem? By the way, I would NOT wait for 'ATC Clearance'! Just get down - and the chances of hitting something are minimal in reality, and unless you are procedural - in which case ATC can do nothing for other traffic's routing - ATC should notice the rapidly unwinding transponder squawk + the MAYDAY when you can..

It is a big sky and a little feather-ruffling will not cause World war III.

[Natstrackalpha]

re:
re:
re:
re:
. . and, don`t forget to Sqawk mayday, immediately - it a does a lot, very quickly . . .

Also, with respect to the girlies in the offices - if the wealth of experience on here (and us up there) are . . mulling over the diff between QNH or QNE then do as BOAC says - `cos if we have found an anomoly and cannot readily solve it for now, why do we think "they" can.

I here what you are all saying - this should be thrashed out in . . wherever they thrash these things out ICAO but if you are worried about teaching the SOP as concrete then go down "there" and tell the girlies in the office or write them a letter - there are more ways to ruffle a plumage than others which are operational.

Who flies these things anyway? Whose a** is in the cockpit carrying up to 400 or more lives . . .?

You make the decisions not only for your aircraft but also for aviation as a whole - "developments as a result of pressure from the industry" Captains of Airliners are - like it or not, also, Captains of Industry - it should also be observed that if they do not take your viewpoints very seriously indeed, viz a vie "from the guy sitting at the sharp end, all the time" then that would be clearly - insane. If they listen to me, then they damn well WILL listen to you.

Flight Safety has :mad: all to do with protocol and cuddly wuddly peace and quiet.

I/we have tangibly done our bit and I await 2014 with baited breath - as far as MORA/MSA and definitions esoteric on the final level being 10,000 14,000 or below, infinite and, as yet, inconclusive then lobby and do it now.

I cannot here, but only relay. which may not do much, as I am still frying my brain since lacking the requisite experience and knowledge level to even dare ponder commenting on the differences listed above.

If you do not lead them - it shall not be done. ICAO, on receiving your complaint, enquiry, report, concern, observation will breathe a sigh of relief that somebody out there - YOU are seeing stuff and acting on it - it saves them a packet of time too - instead of ploughing through the rubble of a smoking hole.

Think of the lives you will have saved (think of the lives you have already saved now) - don`t say nowt` - nobody knows nowt`

[Capn Bloggs]

You European wallies need to up your Transition Layer to FL110/10,000ft. Problem mostly then solved. Might also save a few of those low-level busts as well... :E

[AerocatS2A]

Maybe we should all be on 18000 like the Yanks.

[MrHorgy]

I'm still with RAT here. I'm not particularly happy if after having my rapid decompression I find myself tootling over a hold for LHR on QNH when every other aircraft is on a FL. It's madness. I still think a descent to the level below FL100 when above the transition should be taught. Either that or as others have said - sort of the level so it's above 10,000! If you have the ability on comms to get QNH then you have the ability to tell them you'll stop at FL90.

Surely this all comes down to your situational awareness?