alexious85
17th Sep 2014, 10:30
For airbus pilots the use of the QRH in dealing with a bomb on board has the following peculiarity:
The first instruction in the QRH starts with
"IF POSSIBLE, LAND AND EVACUATE THE AIRCRAFT IMMEDIATELY. If it is not possible to land and evacuate the aircraft within 30 min, apply the following procedures:"
Then it goes on the state the following
"To avoid the activation of an altitude-sensitive bomb, the cabin altitude should not exceed the value at which the bomb has been discovered . To reduce the effects of the explosion, the aircraft should fly as long as possible with approximately 1 PSI differential pressure, to help the blast go outwards......." The rest are procedures to maintain a 1 psi differential pressure till an equalization in landing phase.
What I consider peculiar and contradictory to logic is the very first instruction
Over Europe and many other places it it possible to land easily within 30 minutes while at cruise . So having read the first instruction and judging that you are able to landing within 30' you would not read the following procedure . You will most likely be rushed actually to land ASAP . In doing so you will completely annul the logic of the procedure steps that follow and if indeed a bomb were to go off the Δp would make the explosion catastrophic .
So do you find that even though there might be an airport right underneath you it is better to adopt the complete procedure anyway?
The first instruction in the QRH starts with
"IF POSSIBLE, LAND AND EVACUATE THE AIRCRAFT IMMEDIATELY. If it is not possible to land and evacuate the aircraft within 30 min, apply the following procedures:"
Then it goes on the state the following
"To avoid the activation of an altitude-sensitive bomb, the cabin altitude should not exceed the value at which the bomb has been discovered . To reduce the effects of the explosion, the aircraft should fly as long as possible with approximately 1 PSI differential pressure, to help the blast go outwards......." The rest are procedures to maintain a 1 psi differential pressure till an equalization in landing phase.
What I consider peculiar and contradictory to logic is the very first instruction
Over Europe and many other places it it possible to land easily within 30 minutes while at cruise . So having read the first instruction and judging that you are able to landing within 30' you would not read the following procedure . You will most likely be rushed actually to land ASAP . In doing so you will completely annul the logic of the procedure steps that follow and if indeed a bomb were to go off the Δp would make the explosion catastrophic .
So do you find that even though there might be an airport right underneath you it is better to adopt the complete procedure anyway?