Boeing 737-8FE vh-yie
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: australia
Posts: 916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: australia
Posts: 916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: australia
Posts: 916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
- 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".
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.
It was up to ATC to either accept or reject the request.
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.
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.
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.
