QF depressurisation event
 

Interestingly was only cruising at F250 at the time of descent!

Anybody got the rego? XZL was flying around single pack last week...

Thanks for that.

And of course, the pax were screaming, fretting, filming each other, and on the ground saying they would be reluctant to get on another flight.

Why can't the media explain to the punters that it was a non-event. After they have milked it for all it's worth, and just missed a school on short finals.

https://www.theguardian.com/business...t-to-melbourne

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....ba81ce5254.jpg

Which one is the 737?

For an excellent example of sludge reporting, including two variations on the "plunge" word, and mandatory use of "terrified" this article set new standards:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...lag5YZILMLHAVY

However the public can be assured with the following:

"Passenger planes losing pressure is not uncommon. Pilots are trained to descend to 10,000ft where the atmosphere has more oxygen so passengers can breathe better." :rolleyes:

"Flight QF706 landed safely in Melbourne at 8.02am after making ARBEY time 54.

Ok, so here’s a question or two for the Brains Trust.

I’m cognisant that deferring a defect under an MEL is perfectly legal. There is however a difference between ‘Legal’ and ‘Safe’. After all, just because its in the MEL, it doesn’t mean you have to fly, it means you can, if you decide its safe to do so.

All of this is typically covered in the MEL preamble and I’m not having a shot at the pilots here.

I would be curious to know how long a pack is deferrable for? The reason I ask is that, if you are flying around on one pack, and the other one fails, you are going to get the rubber jungle, an ASIR and some free media exposure. Its not a perhaps or a maybe. I’d suggest that something like a Pack should be deferred only until the aircraft stops at a maintenance base, but that’s a personal opinion.

How much does commercial pressure affect our good judgement? Do we need to modify our risk analysis? Instead of saying, “statistically, what are the chances the second pack will fail?”, should we be looking at the definite outcome when it does fail? Let’s face it, the MEL knows the second failure is possible because of the restriction to FL250 on one pack.

2 more points please:

Would this MEL item be part of the Threat and Error Management and therefore briefed to the Cabin Crew before flight? “We’re on one pack, if it fails there’ll be an Emergency Descent.”

If so, and this is an ethical and theoretical question that goes to Duty of Care, do you believe Passengers should be told before flight of the aircraft status and possible outcomes? I know this is a controversial question and impractical in the real world, but surely Pax have an expectation that their flight is as risk free as possible? I imagine if this were the case, the commercial pressure would shift from the pilots, to the company, as that’s not a conversation the Company would want to have. Surely, that’s a good thing?

Depends greatly on the form the pack failure takes. Depending on that form, and the crews awareness/attentiveness, an emergency descent is not inevitable at all. A managed descent is quite possible. n Let me add another variable if you like. Cruising at 380, 1 pack from 2 fails. Perfectly OK to remain at 380 if I like. 1 pack. How does that change things? Discuss.

Welcome to the quagmire that is aviation. Reality is that flying involves risk. How much risk are you prepared to take is the question.

Most of your questions are only going to be answered definitively if either:

1. A passenger sues an airline or captain even though they followed manufacturer's approved procedures
or
2. A pilot refuses to fly an aircraft with a particular MEL applied and is fired and then claims unfair dismissal and tests it in court.

Until either those happen I would suggest we will never have an answer.

I no longer have access to the MMEL to give a definitive answer to the question, but everything in the MMEL (Master MEL - published by the airframer - operators can go more conservative than the MMEL, but not more liberal) has been statistically analyzed and approved by the regulators.
My best guess is 3 days, but that's just an educated guess.

10 days or 240 hrs.

Hmm. What's the maximum altitude after one of two serviceable packs fails (or is turned off under a QRH procedure) in flight?