VB Emergency Descent BNE ?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Fliegensville, Gold Coast Australia
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
VB Emergency Descent BNE ?
Heard a bit part on the local ABC this morning coming to work. A window crack and resultant emergency descent about 23:00 local last night? Anyone know what happened there?
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 704
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SkyNews on Foxtel carried an interview with a pax on the flight who said there was a noticeable pressure change. ABC news article here: http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems...2/s1522736.htm
Visions of the captain being sucked out like that BA BAC 1-11 in England a few years ago probably elicited a rapid control input and quick tightening of the five-point harness...
I suspect the pressure change noticed by the pax was due to the quick descent and catching the cabin which always hurts a bit, rather than an actual hull breach via the cracked windscreen.
...But for the facts, we will have to wait for the enquiry.
VHCU
Visions of the captain being sucked out like that BA BAC 1-11 in England a few years ago probably elicited a rapid control input and quick tightening of the five-point harness...
I suspect the pressure change noticed by the pax was due to the quick descent and catching the cabin which always hurts a bit, rather than an actual hull breach via the cracked windscreen.
...But for the facts, we will have to wait for the enquiry.
VHCU
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cracked window brings jet down
Source: AAP
December 03, 2005
NINE people on a Virgin Blue flight into Brisbane were taken to hospital after the pilot was forced to make an emergency landing.
The pilot of Boeing 737 travelling from Townsville to Brisbane made a precautionary descent from 34,000 to 10,000 feet at 10.30pm (AEST) yesterday when an outer windscreen cracked.
Ambulance crews treated 11 of the passengers on the aircraft as soon as it landed at Brisbane Airport.
An ambulance spokesman said nine people suffering from nausea, headaches, nose bleeds and ear aches were then taken to the Princess Alexandra and Royal Brisbane Hospitals.
He said the symptoms were caused by decompression and the injuries were not life threatening.
December 03, 2005
NINE people on a Virgin Blue flight into Brisbane were taken to hospital after the pilot was forced to make an emergency landing.
The pilot of Boeing 737 travelling from Townsville to Brisbane made a precautionary descent from 34,000 to 10,000 feet at 10.30pm (AEST) yesterday when an outer windscreen cracked.
Ambulance crews treated 11 of the passengers on the aircraft as soon as it landed at Brisbane Airport.
An ambulance spokesman said nine people suffering from nausea, headaches, nose bleeds and ear aches were then taken to the Princess Alexandra and Royal Brisbane Hospitals.
He said the symptoms were caused by decompression and the injuries were not life threatening.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Aus
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suspect the pressure change noticed by the pax was due to the quick descent and catching the cabin which always hurts a bit, rather than an actual hull breach via the cracked windscreen.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 704
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, so how do you catch the cabin if you ony descend to 10 000 feet?
So that must mean the pressure vessel had to have been breached then?
(Otherwise the pax would have noticed no pressure change).
Unless the cabin was set above 10,000 feet, that is.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Aus
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ronnie
so where is VH CU wrong?
Isn't a pressurized aircraft essentially a big pressure vessel that has wings and engines.
And if the cabin was set above 10 000 feet (yeah, I know, unlikely), well he is right again.
I think he may be beating you hands down.
so where is VH CU wrong?
Isn't a pressurized aircraft essentially a big pressure vessel that has wings and engines.
And if the cabin was set above 10 000 feet (yeah, I know, unlikely), well he is right again.
I think he may be beating you hands down.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Dreamland
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
May be just another case of poor analysis, and hasty over-reaction by the flight crew. But hey it was late at night and those window plies sure make a loud noise when one cracks.
It did occur up near MK.....
The Boeing checklist covers two scenarios.
One is for a cracked window..continue as normal (would need nerves of steel)
and cracked/deformed window with an associated airleak..decend to LSALT/10000' and land ASAP.
I guess Boeing work on the theory that due to the multiple laminations, it is unlikely more than one pane would crack, unless there was a large impact or a major fault in the laminations!
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Fountain Gate...
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now I don't know exactly what occurred here - nor does anyone except for the crew.
BUT - nowhere in the Boeing QRH does it mention "Emergency Descent". It simply states "Reduce pressure differential by limiting flight altitude". It then gives a guide, and 10,000ft is indicated, or 2psi cabin diff.
So - an unnecessary emergency descent has likely caused significant injury to several passengers in my opinion.
Now - good airmanship dictates that the Captain makes the decision as to whether to carry out an emergency descent or not. So, the Captain here obviously thought it was a god idea. Fair enough.
But when the emergency was complete, and the crew realised that a significant number of passengers had suffered injuries as a result of the descent, and quite possibly the aircraft was seriously damaged (otherwise the captain wouldn't have decided an emergency descent was necessary), why no diversion to RK, or MK? Or nearest suitable?
Sorry to be so quick to critisise, but I've seen cracked windscreens in 737's, and whilst it isscary sh1t, there is no excuse for unnecessarily injuring passengers by not following the QRH, then when you have, not getting them to help ASAP.
Fathom? The Boeing 737 QRH DOES NOT say the things that you have stated. It does not suggest "Continue as normal". Nor does it suggest "Land ASAP".
Long Hauler? No, they DID NOT follow the Non Normal checklist for this type.
BUT - nowhere in the Boeing QRH does it mention "Emergency Descent". It simply states "Reduce pressure differential by limiting flight altitude". It then gives a guide, and 10,000ft is indicated, or 2psi cabin diff.
So - an unnecessary emergency descent has likely caused significant injury to several passengers in my opinion.
Now - good airmanship dictates that the Captain makes the decision as to whether to carry out an emergency descent or not. So, the Captain here obviously thought it was a god idea. Fair enough.
But when the emergency was complete, and the crew realised that a significant number of passengers had suffered injuries as a result of the descent, and quite possibly the aircraft was seriously damaged (otherwise the captain wouldn't have decided an emergency descent was necessary), why no diversion to RK, or MK? Or nearest suitable?
Sorry to be so quick to critisise, but I've seen cracked windscreens in 737's, and whilst it isscary sh1t, there is no excuse for unnecessarily injuring passengers by not following the QRH, then when you have, not getting them to help ASAP.
Fathom? The Boeing 737 QRH DOES NOT say the things that you have stated. It does not suggest "Continue as normal". Nor does it suggest "Land ASAP".
Long Hauler? No, they DID NOT follow the Non Normal checklist for this type.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Oz
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IF it was only a cracked outer windsecreen then the QRH calls for the landing altitude to be set to 10,000ft (for pressurisation).
There is then no restriction for max diff or altitude restrictions if it only an outer windscreen.
Maybe the media got it wrong. I know highly unlikely but it could of been more than just the outer, which would then require a level change.
The fact that the Captain decided to do an emergency descent is of no issue. An emergency descent in itself would not lead to the injuries stated as it is not a big difference from a normal high speed descent. The aircraft should not decompress just from what we have been told.
Only knowing what has been shown in the papers there is a possibility that all the 'injuries' were just from panic and not related to an actual depressurisation.
Just my thoughts.... Whatever
There is then no restriction for max diff or altitude restrictions if it only an outer windscreen.
Maybe the media got it wrong. I know highly unlikely but it could of been more than just the outer, which would then require a level change.
The fact that the Captain decided to do an emergency descent is of no issue. An emergency descent in itself would not lead to the injuries stated as it is not a big difference from a normal high speed descent. The aircraft should not decompress just from what we have been told.
Only knowing what has been shown in the papers there is a possibility that all the 'injuries' were just from panic and not related to an actual depressurisation.
Just my thoughts.... Whatever
Guest
Posts: n/a
Something is not quite right here.
Cruising at 34000 the cabin altitude would be around 7000 ft.
Then the windscreen cracks and the crew increase the cabin to 10000 ft to help reduce the diff. while descending the aircraft.
So where do the "injured" passengers with ear problems etc fit in? Increasing the cabin altitude by 3000ft is hardly going to be noticed, as this is not an emergency procedure. Unless you did it with manual outflow valve operation in a heavy handed way and stuffed it up. But why would you when the automated system will do it smoothly.
Do I smell a media beat up and/or mass hysteria here, or is there more to this than stated????
Cruising at 34000 the cabin altitude would be around 7000 ft.
Then the windscreen cracks and the crew increase the cabin to 10000 ft to help reduce the diff. while descending the aircraft.
So where do the "injured" passengers with ear problems etc fit in? Increasing the cabin altitude by 3000ft is hardly going to be noticed, as this is not an emergency procedure. Unless you did it with manual outflow valve operation in a heavy handed way and stuffed it up. But why would you when the automated system will do it smoothly.
Do I smell a media beat up and/or mass hysteria here, or is there more to this than stated????
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: The Real World (TRW)
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sandy Freckle...........
Care to tell us how you know which non-normal checklist(s) they used?
9 pax out of a possible 160 (about 5%) total suffering nosebleeds, earache, and nausea..........sounds almost normal! If people with colds and sinus problems insist on flying, then these types of problems are always going to present themselves post flight.
Long Hauler? No, they DID NOT follow the Non Normal checklist for this type.
9 pax out of a possible 160 (about 5%) total suffering nosebleeds, earache, and nausea..........sounds almost normal! If people with colds and sinus problems insist on flying, then these types of problems are always going to present themselves post flight.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Frozen Chunks (Cloud Cuckoo Land)
Age: 17
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I never quite understood why the 737 has an emergency descent checklist, after all its just a high speed descent, maybe a tad closer to Vmo/Mmo - someone finally shed some light for me the other day, and that is because the 737 is a common endorsement with the 737-200, and apparently you need a checklist to do a high speed descent (emergency) in the 200, so all other models also get the checklist...
A high speed descent, or emergency descent (same thing) should not cause ear problems etc.
A high speed descent, or emergency descent (same thing) should not cause ear problems etc.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: The Real World (TRW)
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
an emergency descent....... its just a high speed descent
Cracked cockpit windows are fairly frequent occurrences, but associated, uncontrollable cabin altitude is not.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Frozen Chunks (Cloud Cuckoo Land)
Age: 17
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HI'er - yes I agree. I was really just talking about the terminology. I think in most cases for an "Emergency descent" due to pressurisation problems, you would actually rarely accelerate to Vmo/Mmo, unless you knew exactly what caused the problem. Moreover given the 737s terrible speed control, you would be reluctant to go near the limit anyway.
I guess my point is referring to the Emergency descent checklist, why is there a checklist to do a highspeed descent on the 737? For example the 767, had attached to the bottom of its rapid depress checklist, how to carry out a descent as a note, not a checklist as such... Then if we look at the 737 emergency descent checklist, it leaves out half the steps you actually need to do, to make it descend with out stalling ..(ie Press LVL change) (I understand that this is becuase it assumes your handflying, not using the automatics)
I guess my point is referring to the Emergency descent checklist, why is there a checklist to do a highspeed descent on the 737? For example the 767, had attached to the bottom of its rapid depress checklist, how to carry out a descent as a note, not a checklist as such... Then if we look at the 737 emergency descent checklist, it leaves out half the steps you actually need to do, to make it descend with out stalling ..(ie Press LVL change) (I understand that this is becuase it assumes your handflying, not using the automatics)