QF 448 MEL-SYD Pan Call Antiskid inop 19/4
Bottums Up
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.
If time permits post your problem on PPRuNe, await answers, and determine majority armchair opinion before making radio calls or decisions.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
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.
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.
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?
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?
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?".
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1.67
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...
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...
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UAE
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We're far to anal 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.
Bottums Up
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks
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.
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.
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).
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.
It's damn scary that folk are questioning the requirement for Landing Distance Factors. CAO 20.7.1b refers.
Last edited by kellykelpie; 21st Apr 2012 at 05:38.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1.67
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
factoring
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.
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.
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?
Um also, did all you armchair critics bother to find out the environmental conditions before you go off half cocked monday morning quaterbacking this?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Um also, did all you armchair critics bother to find out the environmental conditions before you go off half cocked monday morning quaterbacking this?
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
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bexley
Posts: 1,792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
