Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

Boeing 737-8FE vh-yie

Old 23rd Sep 2021, 05:05
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: australia
Posts: 856
BuzzBox
The Standard Boeing spiel or the Standard Boeing 737 spiel?

PoppaJoe
Since when is following SOP - IF this still remains the SOP for B737 - "playing around with CB's"? You discuss, if you see no adverse consequence you're allowed one reset attempt as per NNC (assuming not countermanded by any Company instructions).
Rather sweeping statement as well "touch a CB and the aircraft will crash everytime" inference. And I thought AirAsia operated Airbus not Boeing but who cares - all the same procedures apparently.

big buddah
"Didn't reset CB as not recommended by Boeing in this procedure..." could you please clarify the NNC item specifically mentioned CB's or just your interpretation of the CB notes in the NNC introduction?

As before if procedures have changed for the B737(NG in this case) I'm happy to stand corrected.
galdian is offline  
Old 23rd Sep 2021, 05:31
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Here & there
Posts: 816
Originally Posted by galdian View Post
BuzzBox
The Standard Boeing spiel or the Standard Boeing 737 spiel?
My understanding is that it's standard wording across all Boeing types. The quote was taken from a B777 QRH that's about two years old. A B737 QRH from about 10 years ago says the same thing. The B747 QRH is similar, but also prohibits the resetting of fuel pump CBs.
BuzzBox is offline  
Old 23rd Sep 2021, 05:39
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: australia
Posts: 856
Originally Posted by BuzzBox View Post
My understanding is that it's standard wording across all Boeing types. The quote was taken from a B777 QRH that's about two years old. A B737 QRH from about 10 years ago says the same thing. The B747 QRH is similar, but also prohibits the resetting of fuel pump CBs.
OK thanks, the 737 spiel also included prohibiting resetting of the fuel pump CB's, other than that one reset allowed; of course at Captain/Command decision but a reset is not prohibited.
galdian is offline  
Old 23rd Sep 2021, 05:52
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Al's Diner
Age: 61
Posts: 164
Why did they enter RVSM airspace with inoperable autopilots?
Potsie Weber is offline  
Old 23rd Sep 2021, 06:45
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: FNQ ... It's Permanent!
Posts: 3,771
Originally Posted by Potsie Weber View Post
Why did they enter RVSM airspace with inoperable autopilots?
Via an ATC Clearance?
Capt Fathom is offline  
Old 23rd Sep 2021, 07:14
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Al's Diner
Age: 61
Posts: 164
Originally Posted by Capt Fathom View Post
Via an ATC Clearance?
According to the report, they notified ATC they could not meet RVSM requirements once in cruise, but the requirements for RVSM (automatic altitude hold system) must be met before entering RVSM airspace. They had the problem before they entered RVSM.
Potsie Weber is offline  
Old 23rd Sep 2021, 07:25
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: FNQ ... It's Permanent!
Posts: 3,771
It's a very abbreviated report.....

The ATSB found that at all stages of the flight, the flight crew acted in accordance with operator’s and aircraft manufacturer’s procedures, and had considered and managed the risks associated with continuing the flight.
Capt Fathom is offline  
Old 23rd Sep 2021, 07:37
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 773
If you declare that you are non-RVSM it does not prevent you from operating in RVSM airspace, but ATC may not give you a clearance. As this event occurred this year I doubt that other traffic was going to be a problem especially as they were given a block clearance. had they been denied a clearance into RVSM airspace then I doubt that they would have had the fuel to go to Brisbane. I think that the way this was handled shows the results of years of CRM and TEM training. Positive outcome and it appears as though the crew have gone through the problem and mitigated the threats. The fact that the report has been discontinued suggests that the ATSB does not see the benefit of using resources where there is no safety benefit. Essentially the crew were faced with a technical issue, they handled it, the aeroplane was landed safely. End of story, the way the system is supposed to work.
Lookleft is offline  
Old 23rd Sep 2021, 09:53
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Aust
Posts: 255
Originally Posted by Potsie Weber View Post
According to the report, they notified ATC they could not meet RVSM requirements once in cruise, but the requirements for RVSM (automatic altitude hold system) must be met before entering RVSM airspace. They had the problem before they entered RVSM.
RVSM really shouldn't apply in Australia, except maybe MEL-SYD_BNE at peak hours. So Potsie suggests they should have cancelled the flight because they may not meet the requirements of reduced separation operations in a country that is totally empty of aircraft?.They did exactly the right thing. Incidentally I have never heard of management or engineering encouraging a turn back regardless of the severity of the problem.
deja vu is offline  
Old 23rd Sep 2021, 10:14
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: australia
Posts: 856
Originally Posted by deja vu View Post
RVSM really shouldn't apply in Australia, except maybe MEL-SYD_BNE at peak hours. So Potsie suggests they should have cancelled the flight because they may not meet the requirements of reduced separation operations in a country that is totally empty of aircraft?.They did exactly the right thing. Incidentally I have never heard of management or engineering encouraging a turn back regardless of the severity of the problem.
Don't disagree but:
- the rules do exist
- the report itself said they only reported the inability "in the cruise" inferring they entered RVSM knowing they couldn't meet the requirements to enter RVSM airspace.

I expect they obtained clearances - or at least understanding from ATC - before passing FL290 and ATC said "yeah, f**k all traffic, we'll make it work".

Only Q then would be whether /under what circumstances ATC can vary "the law", an aircraft in distress once in RVSM airspace is different from an aircraft that knowingly enters that airspace without meeting the requirements.
Mention solely as my early days in Japan something standard in Oz - cancel 250kt below 10.000' - ATC could not authorise for normal operations as was "against the law".
galdian is offline  
Old 23rd Sep 2021, 11:03
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: FNQ ... It's Permanent!
Posts: 3,771
Pelair operated their Westwinds non-rvsm for years. Most times they would get their requested level. Sometimes they would not.
It was up to ATC to either accept or reject the request.

Capt Fathom is offline  
Old 23rd Sep 2021, 11:24
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Al's Diner
Age: 61
Posts: 164
Originally Posted by deja vu View Post
RVSM really shouldn't apply in Australia, except maybe MEL-SYD_BNE at peak hours. So Potsie suggests they should have cancelled the flight because they may not meet the requirements of reduced separation operations in a country that is totally empty of aircraft?.They did exactly the right thing. Incidentally I have never heard of management or engineering encouraging a turn back regardless of the severity of the problem.
Not suggesting that at all. Only questioning whether they followed the RVSM rules. Simply advise ATC before FL290 that you are non RVSM and let ATC decide if there is traffic around that may restrict or delay operating non-RVSM in RVSM airspace. Itís not that hard.
Potsie Weber is offline  
Old 23rd Sep 2021, 13:02
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Aust
Posts: 255
Originally Posted by Potsie Weber View Post
Not suggesting that at all. Only questioning whether they followed the RVSM rules. Simply advise ATC before FL290 that you are non RVSM and let ATC decide if there is traffic around that may restrict or delay operating non-RVSM in RVSM airspace. Itís not that hard.
Well yes in hindsight its all so clear. So at F/L180 AP A disengages, A/T also disengages, they select B AP soon after and then that disengages later, the Stab trim light comes on, they monitor the problem, they run checklists, they call engineering and management and finally accept they are not going to have an autopilot and requested a block altitude to complete their flight. True, the rules must be obeyed, maybe they prioritised their task, maybe it didn't occur to them that when entering RVSM they couldn't restore the autopilot, because they were fully occupied whatever, who knows.? The last thing they needed is pedantic criticism.
deja vu is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2021, 02:13
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 2,717
According to the report, they notified ATC they could not meet RVSM requirements once in cruise, but the requirements for RVSM (automatic altitude hold system) must be met before entering RVSM airspace. They had the problem before they entered RVSM.
You should go work at CASA with an attitude like that. They told centre they were non-RVSM, if it wasn't going to work Centre would have just said 'clearance not available descend now' etc etc. They may have also been RVSM compliant on the way up but not at the cruise. Noone knows and it really doesn't matter. They flew the aeroplane and that is all that matters. Only in Australia would someone be worried that you may or may not have broken the AIP for a couple of minutes.
neville_nobody is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.