Continue Flight
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: In the Orient
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Continue Flight
For those of us who operate the Super Puma L2 machines, some emergencies call for "Continue Flight" eg if there is one TRU failure. This could be quite misleading because as far as management is concerned Continue Flight means to continue flying until the end of the mission (maybe with 5 or 6 rig stops) before proceeding back. However most of us would interprete as a continue flight back to a base where repairs could be made without doing another couple of hours of flight. What is the general opinion of most other pilots? I know weather and nature of emergency etc also plays a role in the decision
It depends upon the MEL whether a new sector can be begun. Most MELs recognise the probability of a further complicating failure and, for offshore operations, the complexity of the environment vis-a-vis the risk of stranding the aircraft on a rig awaiting the rectification crew.
Jim
Jim
After a emergency/malfunction "continue flight" to me is "continue flight back to a base where repairs could be made without doing another couple of hours of flight."
continue flight =! complete the mission (but also is not "land as soon as possible")
So if I'm flying from A to B to stop and refuel, and then proceed to C , after a malfunction/emergency I don't care what the mel or management says.
I'm going to continue and end the flight at the next destination in my flight, in this case B.
Just my 2 cents.
Regards.
continue flight =! complete the mission (but also is not "land as soon as possible")
So if I'm flying from A to B to stop and refuel, and then proceed to C , after a malfunction/emergency I don't care what the mel or management says.
I'm going to continue and end the flight at the next destination in my flight, in this case B.
Just my 2 cents.
Regards.
gnow,
Jim is quite right this will depend on what the MEL has to say about the malfunction in question. Generally in the North Sea the MEL's are written in a way that you cannot depart an offshore Rig with an MEL defect that would prevent it. This is also true if the helicopter has been rotors running on the deck.
However in conjunction with the aircraft manufacturer special permission for a return can be granted if it is deemed appropriate.
Woolf
Jim is quite right this will depend on what the MEL has to say about the malfunction in question. Generally in the North Sea the MEL's are written in a way that you cannot depart an offshore Rig with an MEL defect that would prevent it. This is also true if the helicopter has been rotors running on the deck.
However in conjunction with the aircraft manufacturer special permission for a return can be granted if it is deemed appropriate.
Woolf
ECF use the term 'continue flight' where most people would say 'land as soon as practical'. Generally this would preclude departing again after landing, or would impose an MEL constraint (VFR only for instance).
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: In the Orient
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the replies. All of you who repiled must be "non mangement" pilots. Generally, most of us feel that we should be flying back to a base where repairs could be made without complicating the issue.
For what it's worth I've tried to write our checklists in such a way that if the MEL doesn't allow the failure (eg single TRU failure as quoted) or I think it unwise to "continue flight" (engine chip warning springs to mind) I use "Land as soon as practical". I think this is a reasonably sensible approach because you do not really wish to be stuck offshore waiting for engineering support in bad weather with all the other associated problems, and the pilot is not necessarily aware of any other potential problems (such as is the engine about to grind to a halt or is the DC essential bus about to blow up). Better to go somewhere where the engineers can look at the problem in a hangar.
If the MEL allows continued flight (eg with various AFCS/IFDS discrepancies) then no problem, provided as stated above you comply with the provisions of the MEL when you next touch down.
If the MEL allows continued flight (eg with various AFCS/IFDS discrepancies) then no problem, provided as stated above you comply with the provisions of the MEL when you next touch down.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting.
I stand to be corrected here, but is the MEL detailing what deficiency you can depart with outbound in inbound. When you are in the air you handle your problen in accordance with your emergency check list and make the appropriate decision. The MEL only becomes a factor once you have landed on land or offshore. The following definitions are unambiguous.
"Land (ditch) immediately" - Land or ditch
"Land as soon as possible" - Land at the nearest site at which a safe landing can be made.
"Land as soon as practicable" - Extended flight is not recommended, Duration of the flight and choice of landing site subject to Captains discretion, Take into consideration whether repair is possible at selected landing site.
"Continue flight" - Just that, continue flight
I stand to be corrected here, but is the MEL detailing what deficiency you can depart with outbound in inbound. When you are in the air you handle your problen in accordance with your emergency check list and make the appropriate decision. The MEL only becomes a factor once you have landed on land or offshore. The following definitions are unambiguous.
"Land (ditch) immediately" - Land or ditch
"Land as soon as possible" - Land at the nearest site at which a safe landing can be made.
"Land as soon as practicable" - Extended flight is not recommended, Duration of the flight and choice of landing site subject to Captains discretion, Take into consideration whether repair is possible at selected landing site.
"Continue flight" - Just that, continue flight
check,
You are right in what you are saying however the original question was whether is would be permissible to "continue the flight" with further sectors i.e. further landings before returning to base in which case the MEL obviuosly will be the deciding factor.
I think the point that gnow tried to highlight was that even though the Emergency Checklist allows further flight without restriction the MEL might say otherwise and cannot be disregarded. As Steve has pointed out it would be ideal if the MEL would tie in with the emergency checklist.
Woolf
You are right in what you are saying however the original question was whether is would be permissible to "continue the flight" with further sectors i.e. further landings before returning to base in which case the MEL obviuosly will be the deciding factor.
I think the point that gnow tried to highlight was that even though the Emergency Checklist allows further flight without restriction the MEL might say otherwise and cannot be disregarded. As Steve has pointed out it would be ideal if the MEL would tie in with the emergency checklist.
Woolf
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Woolf,
Your right, should have read the posts properly. I think the answer is if the emergency check list says continue flight, then check the implications prior to the first landing. If continued flight is not possible after landing than you better make it home.
Your right, should have read the posts properly. I think the answer is if the emergency check list says continue flight, then check the implications prior to the first landing. If continued flight is not possible after landing than you better make it home.
