A320 pack failure.

[MD83FO]

How would you handle a pack 1(2) fault before takeoff ?
Etops and non etops
Thanks.

[hetfield]

MEL...........

[3holelover]

Are you asking what the MEL says, or are you asking for a sensibly cautionary, judgement call, style decision after the MEL says go?

If the MEL says go, it'd better have a few provisos that will include terrain hight, fuel quantities and things to consider should the other side go for a dump.

Anyway, that's where your answer is, if that'll do.... ETOPS, I'd think it's an about face, back to the gate.

In any case, don't push the throttles to the go band before at least finding out what the book says.

If someone tells you otherwise, contrasting what the book says, quit and find a safer employer.

[safelife]

non-etops go, etops depends.

[vilas]

APU limit for use of both Pnumatics and electricals is FL 225. I think the MEL restricts the FL with one pack to this.

[hetfield]

I think the MEL restricts the FL with one pack to this.

Many moons ago but AFAIK FL310.

[Meikleour]

Vilas: The question was about a single pack failure - why would you want to use the APU bleed source when you have 2 good engine bleed sources available? RTFQ

[Pennellino]

non etops: dispatch it at max FL315, considering fuel extra for lower levels

[Nick 1]

Ok you can go by MEL . So ? What 'll you do ?

[Wodrick]

If you have dispatched which will be defined in the MEL then the MEL is irrelevant and QRH applies.

[Pennellino]

when doors are closed obviously references come from QRH. Anyway limiting cruising level up to FL315 is led by good judgment criteria.

[hetfield]

If you have dispatched which will be defined in the MEL then the MEL is irrelevant and QRH applies. Amen :ugh:

Are you a lawyer or a pilot?

[3holelover]

Can anyone let us know what their QRH says? ...for interest sake?

[Pennellino]

ECAM will state Air Pack 1(2) Fault: Pack (affected) ....OFF and in Status you'll see Inop Sys: Pack 1(2)

after having referred to QRH,Computer Reset,C/B and having found nothing to deal with you definitely give a look to MEL. I'd be go minded, limiting FL315 according to fuel required and loaded, weather, kind of route and destination (obstacles,not assisted maintance places and so on)

[I-2021]

How would you handle a pack 1(2) fault before takeoff ?
Etops and non etops
Thanks.

Hi,

Non ETOPS : turn the pack off as per ecam. Continue your flight as planned. Note : Be sure that at your destination you have someone able to put the pack in the MEL.
ETOPS : You need both of them, so request an alternate non etops routing according to your fuel or if you get a pack overheat wait until it will eventually cool down.

EDIT : In case the failure happens during taxi out the MEL are no longer applicable therefore you can continue with a single pack even in an ETOPS scenario. The decision is yours.

Cheers.

Cheers.

[HOTROD_0414]

Pack failure before take-off is not an en route mel any more, well at least for the new metals. One has to go back to the back for maintenance action.
There are still some old airbus, in which it is an en route mel. Once under mel, there is no flight level restrictions, as far as your speed brakes are operative.

Just flew in one of them, with 1 pack under mel, last night.
Still fresh. :cool:

[Slasher]

Just to back up Hotrod yes that's correct. However there's no
restriction for the Co MEL to impose the FL315 restriction on
the newer ones if it sees fit. I flew a newie not long ago which
had this limitation in the TL.

Why I don't really know.

...you can continue with a single pack even in an ETOPS scenario. The decision is yours.

I'd be very twichy going over shark-ridden waters on a dark
and stormy night. A long ETOPS trip likely means you are
limited on fuel anyway, and the FOB at ETP2 is probably a lot
less than you'd like in the all-engine depressurised case.

[charlies angel]

Slasher

You said:

'However there's no
restriction for the Co MEL to impose the FL315 restriction on
the newer ones if it sees fit. I flew a newie not long ago which
had this limitation in the TL.

Why I don't really know.'


The post immediately above yours says:


Once under mel, there is no flight level restrictions,as far as your speed brakes are operative.

:ok:

[macdo]

the 315 restriction is lifted if the "speedbrakes are operative". Who knows why, its an Airbus. Thats retrospective in our MEL to the older a/c too.

[I-2021]

I'd be very twichy going over shark-ridden waters on a dark
and stormy night. A long ETOPS trip likely means you are
limited on fuel anyway, and the FOB at ETP2 is probably a lot
less than you'd like in the all-engine depressurised case.

Yep, me too :) It was just for the sake of what you can or cannot legally do but common sense is always a great tool eheh.

Cheers.

[ZeeDoktor]

I'm no AB driver, but the 315 limit in dependence of operable speed brakes makes sense from a rapid descent perspective should the other pack decide to quit also, which is far more likely, statistically speaking, when one is out already because the remaining one is working harder.

Some subsystems have pressure dependent components (we do...) hence have a limited amount of time to get down. Remember TOC is limited even on full face but non-pressurised oxygen masks from 350 and up, if memory serves.

[Slasher]

CA its imposed wether or not the Sbrake is operative on this
newest one in the Co MEL (as against the Airbus MMEL) and
iterated in the TL Notice.

Maybe its a hangover of Engineering conservatism but again
I don't know why.