QF 448 MEL-SYD Pan Call Antiskid inop 19/4

[captwawa]

Is an Antiskid inop really a pan call for sydney 16R??

[Capt Fathom]

Depends on how much runway you need with..... antiskid inop!

[captwawa]

B767 it was, they requested full length, got off at L i thinks 1/2 way. RWY 3.6Kmish. Fire trucks all over the place following a nonevent.

[Stalins ugly Brother]

Might depend on what runway they were assigned initially?

If it was 07 due noise sharing with a quartering tail wind as Sydney is renowned to do, then hell yeah, I would demand 16R with Anti-skid inop.
Just speculating of course but i'm sure the crews reasons, what ever they were, were justifiable. :ok:

[2Plus]

...so "require 16R"

:rolleyes: A PAN call. Really???

Hate to think if an "urgency" situation arose.

[Roger Greendeck]

Thats what PAN calls are for, to ensure that an abnormal event turns into a non-event. It makes sure that you get 16R and if it does all go wrong emergency services are already there. I am sure there would be a long line of critics of it had not ended so well and he had not taken every opportunity before landing.

[Stalins ugly Brother]

2plus;

Hate to think if an "urgency" situation arose.

Definition: Pan-Pan
In radiotelephone communications, a call of three repetitions of pan-pan[1] ( /ˈpɑːn ˈpɑːn/)[2][3] is used to signify that there is an urgency on board a boat, ship, aircraft or other vehicle but that, for the time being at least, there is no immediate danger to anyone's life or to the vessel itself.[4] This is referred to as a state of urgency. This is distinct from a Mayday call, which means that there is imminent danger to life or to the continued viability of the vessel itself.[5] Thus "pan-pan" informs potential rescuers (including emergency services and other craft in the area) that a safety problem exists whereas "Mayday" will call upon them to drop all other activities and immediately initiate a rescue attempt.

Enough said. :rolleyes:

[Wedcue]

How long till school holiday's finish for you 2plus?

[2Plus]

Some fair points made.

Stalin,
Indeed and thankyou for highlighting my point. Was the situation urgent? I don't know, I wasn't there. But unless fuel remaining became an issue, as a result of an ATC delay to slot them into the flow for a longer runway, methinks not.

Wedcue,
A very constructive comment there. Thankyou also. Rather ironic don't you think, coming from one who uses smart arse personal attacks to convey a difference of opinion? Not a pollie are you? In answer to your question...3 days.


I'm not saying that what transpired or whatever was said was wrong. Quite frankly, I couldn't give a rats. Obviously the crew did what they felt was necessary for the safety of the flight. They obviously wanted the firies there waiting just in case. Fair call. I'm simply posing the idea that just perhaps, a PAN wasn't necessary. If you think it was, fair enough. Maybe I'm not conservative enough. How about if you were dispatched with an antiskid inop. MEL. Would you declare a PAN when you got to Sydney and they assigned you initially 16L?

Anyway, it's past my bedtime and I need my rest. Apparently I have school on Monday.

[Keg]

How about if you were dispatched with an antiskid inop. MEL.

It's been a while since I looked at this MEL specifically but I recall (from the dark recesses of my mind) that it was almost a 'no go' item in terms of runway length required- particularly on a wet day. Without having delved into the books my gut says 'nyet' to that one.

[lilflyboy262...2]

2plus, let me point out another part of that paragraph you neglected to read.

"aircraft or other vehicle but that, for the time being at least, there is no immediate danger to anyone's life or to the vessel itself."

That plane ends up off the end of the runway due to that system inop, hell yeah I would want everyone there and ready for me.

[Jet Man]

If you dispatch with Anti-skid inop it's alot more restrictive on planned runway length than if it happens in the air and you can use the QRH non-normal distances.

Just imagine if the pilots hadn't called a PAN and run off the end of the runway - I think this thread would be quite a bit different!

IMHO absolutely correct to call a PAN.

[Fieldmouse]

Thats what PAN calls are for, to ensure that an abnormal event turns into a non-event. It makes sure that you get 16R and if it does all go wrong emergency services are already there. I am sure there would be a long line of critics of it had not ended so well and he had not taken every opportunity before landing.

Many years ago I watched a young man die because he didn't declare a pan, was processed normally, and crashed on downwind from fuel starvation. A simple declaration would have cleared the traffic, got him a straight in approach, and he'd be alive today. The Pan call is there to stop bad things getting worse.

[maggotdriver]

What? Call a PAN and interrupt the volleyball? Why not, it keeps everyone in the game. On a serious note, if you can't find a runway long enough, does it then become an emergency and you don't have to factor 1.67?:confused::p

[Lookleft]

There is no such thing as a "trigger" point for a PAN call. It is made because it is considered appropriate for the situation. The PIC wanted all the assistance he could get. Use of all available resources I think its called. Remember those CRM courses? Its not just the resources on the flight deck. As has been mentioned a non-event.

[rmcdonal]

They obviously wanted the firies there waiting just in case. Even if they didn't, the fire-fighters get bored when nothing happens and love an excuse to suit up and roll out with the lights flashing.

[framer]

In addition, you can bet your bottom dollar that the emergency services learnt something about their call-out procedures that they can improve on and will have learnt something valuable. It will have been good experience for the junior emergency services personnal as well. All in all, a good day for everyone :)

[DutchRoll]

Antiskid inop on a big jet can be a very big deal. It's a significant MEL when you look at runway length requirements. I seem to recall at least one QF case of the jet simply being towed back to the hangar with virtually no questions asked, on a rainy day when the antiskid became inop.

Straight away, even without weather or runway length issues, there is the increased possibility of blown tyres on landing with brake application (we're so used to using the brakes however we want because the antiskid takes care of it all). The runway length increase needed for a safe landing can be very considerable depending on the circumstances.

It'll take 3 or 4 days for everyone to forget about any debate over declaring a PAN. But if he didn't, and burst the tyres or swerved off the side or end of the runway, he's going to bear that burden for a long, long time (before and after the ATSB investigation).

[Capt Fathom]

FONG..... go and advertise some other place!

I see our friend JcbyFong has vanished!

[kinteafrokunta]

FONG..... go and advertise some other place!


Sorry, I can't fathom what you are trying to say. Did he/she advertised on Prrune about a place? How do you know he/she has some other place other than the one he had sought to advertise?

[Capt Claret]

I reckon the front page of the QRH should have the following warning:

If time permits post your problem on PPRuNe, await answers, and determine majority armchair opinion before making radio calls or decisions. :oh:

[slim]

The QF rules state that if an aircraft cannot comply with it's clearance due to a serious inflight contingency then it is to request an alternate clearance using the urgency or distress call as appropriate. So if they needed a new clearance for 16R a PAN call was mandatory. The armchair experts can return to their comic books now...

[Capt Fathom]

What rubbish!

You don't need a Pan call unless there is some urgency.

If you can't land or depart from a runway that ATC are offering, just state you have an have an 'operational requirement' for a particular runway.

That is normally the end of it.

[kellykelpie]

Hi Maggotdriver - the 1.67 doesn't apply since you didn't dispatch without antiskid.

I don't see any issues with declaring a PAN for no antiskid in a Jet - it's not just overrun risk but burst tires on landing. We're far to anal in Oz about this sort of thing - "Great landing but can you believe he called PAN?". Hopefully his career will recover hey Capt Fathom?

[josephfeatherweight]

I don't see any issues with declaring a PAN for no antiskid in a Jet - it's not just overrun risk but burst tires on landing. We're far to anal in Oz about this sort of thing - "Great landing but can you believe he called PAN?".
Couldn't agree more - what's with everyone's aversion to a PAN call? Sensible, appropriate and caters for what might happen given the situation at hand...

[unseen]

Hi Maggotdriver - the 1.67 doesn't apply since you didn't dispatch without antiskid.

The only time 1.67 does not apply is in the event of an emergency according to the applicable CAO - which I think was the point maggotdriver was making...

[Geragau]

We're far to anal in Oz

Righto! The most apt and astute description of things in Oz.

The crew had every right to declare pan, get the firies ready...if it becomes a non-event later, he just has to tell ATC and get the emergency services to stand down.

[Jet Man]

Hey unseen

Can you quote the applicable reference from the CAO? I believe the 1.67 factoring is a planning requirement only.

[Capt Claret]

It's damn scary that folk are questioning the requirement for Landing Distance Factors. CAO 20.7.1b refers.

11
11.1

Landing distance required
For subparagraph 5.1 (a), the landing distance for a jet-engined aeroplane is:
(a) for an aeroplane engaged in regular public transport operations when landing on a dry runway, or in charter operations when landing on a dry or wet runway — 1.67 times the distance required to bring the aeroplane to a stop on a dry runway; or
(b) for an aeroplane engaged in regular public transport operations when landing on a wet runway:
(i) 1.92 times the distance required to bring the aeroplane to a stop on a dry runway; or
(ii) the distance set out in the flight manual or operations manual for operations conducted on wet runways.

[unseen]

Thanks Capt Claret.

The only part I will add is the final part of that subsection:

11.5 This subsection does not apply in the case of an emergency.

There is no difference between planning and inflight cases.

[kellykelpie]

We must all be doing it wrong then. Airbus charts used for abnormals (landing dist apply) are the actual landing distances (unfactored by 1.67).

It's damn scary that folk are questioning the requirement for Landing Distance Factors. CAO 20.7.1b refers.

The only thing that scares me is that attitude that someone can't post a question (or make a Pan call) without being made look a fool.

[unseen]

Airbus certifies to European standards which don't require factoring for any in flight calculation, same as the FAA.

The aircraft is operated here under Australian rules which do require in flight factoring.

CASA is the Australian regulator, not Airbus.

Perhaps your airline has an exemption from 20.7.1b to follow the Airbus method in lieu of the regs? It would probably be a straight forward exemption to obtain based on the fact that everyone else in the world does it that way.

[kellykelpie]

Ok - thanks for the info.

I guess that settles the reason for the Pan call too.

[unseen]

You go to the EFB Landing performance - select the ECAM for Antiskid fail - and when you do the performance figures the module will only give you the UNFACTORED landing distance.

The CAO then requires you to factor this distance unless you are in an emergency situation.

Or, you have an exemption from the CAO which allows you to use unfactored data in such a situation.

[Occy]

I have flown with the antiskid U/S MEL, it's not really t-h-a-t big a deal, although obviously there are massive weight penalties (no probs with a 1 hr sector though - we did SYD-MEL, took off 34L and landed 16, cavok both places) and, of course, the runway must be dry. Took us ages to do the performance data though so we were mega late.

Um also, did all you armchair critics bother to find out the environmental conditions before you go off half cocked monday morning quaterbacking this?

[Mstr Caution]

Um also, did all you armchair critics bother to find out the environmental conditions before you go off half cocked monday morning quaterbacking this?

I heard 34L, wet, 5 to 8 kts tailwind, rainshowers, ATC & weather holding.

Arrival with alternate or additional weather hold fuel may not have been out of the question, thereby significantly increasing the landing weight at the time.

MC

[ALAEA Fed Sec]

Anti skid u/s may be no big deal but it would make for an interesting day if the thrust reversers did not deploy (a common fault I saw reported on many occassions as a LAME). Just wondering how many layers of cheese can be removed. I think PAN call justified.

[Short_Circuit]

With the antiskid gone inop do you loose TD protection as well.
Your answer............
(tick tick tick Bong) :}

[Capt Fathom]

With the antiskid gone inop do you loose TD protection as well.

What is TD protection?

[Mstr Caution]

High tyre temperature will still cause Fuse Plugs to deflate the tyre.

TD - Thermal Discharge I assume

[SMOC]

Touch Down

[kinteafrokunta]

TD protection has been a safety feature on the brake system of jetliners for a long time. That contraction for touch down protection is in such common use that............

Short_Circuit's post about losing TD protection once anti-skid is not available really exposed something BIG. Hints anyone?:rolleyes:

[Short_Circuit]

On a Boeing "Touchdown protection" prevents the brakes being applied, until wheel spin up to within a few knots of IRU ground speed, by using the Anti Skid system.

[Kalistan]

Kinte, I too am wondering about the credentials of the guys who had trouble understanding what TD protection is.

Pprune is sure a strange place with all kinds of actors.

[kellykelpie]

Maybe these "actors" fly something other than a Boeing?

[Capt Fathom]

Short_Circuit's post about losing TD protection once anti-skid is not available really exposed something BIG. Hints anyone?

If you land with your feet on the brakes, you'll probably blow the tyres? :}

I'll need some more hints maybe! :E

[kinteafrokunta]

Your need for hints is something I can't fathom but I know you are :O:O:O and :*:*:*

[blueloo]

I remember a few years back - a 737 was dispatched anti-skid inop. The DDG indicated to use maximum manual braking.

If my memory serves me correctly - The 737 landed on 25 in Sydney. It had stopped by Charlie taxiway. I am not sure how long the tyres lasted before it was towed.


(The DDG obviously had an error in it which was subsequently amended!!)

[bakutteh]

On the A330, if I remember right with anti-skid off we had to limit brake pressure to 1000 psi. Quite hard to do so in short bumpy runways .

[Bankstown]

I remember a few years back - a 737 was dispatched anti-skid inop. The DDG indicated to use maximum manual breaking.
They were told to apply 'breaking' so they broke it! 'Braking' may have been the intention.

[blueloo]

Indeed. Well spotted.

[Bumpfoh]

They were told to apply 'breaking' so they broke it! 'Braking' may have been the intention.

I believe the PF (capt) was the one who took this instruction literally maximum manual braking. , I'll assume you mean both of his feet and not the PNF.:ok:

[Look Mum - no hands]

A few years back I flew regularly with an FO who counted English as a second or third language. His approach briefing often included his intention to make "a short field landing with maximum breakage..." Fortunately he never succeeded.....

[Lookleft]

Not sure what happened to my previous post but the question was why would you not declare a PAN if you thought that you had a blown tyre and that it might cause landing difficulties?
This thread is questioning why would you declare a PAN if the antiskid went inop, today a QF aircraft did not declare a PAN when they thought they had tyre problems but wanted the emergency services on standby(which automatically happens if you declare a PAN). Its irrelevant which airline it is but what would be the reason in not declaring a PAN if you think there might be landing problems and you want emergency services?

Is it the media interest or is it a fear of Flt Ops giving you a bollocking in this world of Just Culture?

[Tidbinbilla]

The posts were removed because this thread is about a different flight, different situation.

[Lookleft]

Your call boss but the original post was about why was a PAN call made, I was trying to generate discussion on why a PAN call was not made. No problems I will just start a different thread.:ok: