Ryanair Loss of Pressurisation 25th Aug
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Europe.
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm curious to know why you're "surprised to hear the airplane is back up flying". Please respond. Thanks.
Or do they?
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Europe.
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pull on the mask cup, but don't worry about pulling too hard. The hose is quite long and you'd probably have to pull it down to your crotch to start putting any undue force on the hose (The hose also runs through a hole in a bracket which has a rubber grommet, which will offer a degree of resistance, so it would be quite difficult to pull the hose away from the oxygen generator).
Can't remember where I've seen it (it was one of those Nat Geo docs, for what they are worth.
)
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: London
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please expand on" suprised to hear the aircraft is back flying"
Are you saying the aircraft should be grounded? If so then why not ground the fleet?.......................
Take the BA incident........they suspect that was software issues and the fleet are still flying??
The point I am trying to make is unless you have a confirmed source of fault, and the aircraft passes the applicable function tests as per the AMM, why should you ground it??
Are you saying the aircraft should be grounded? If so then why not ground the fleet?.......................
Take the BA incident........they suspect that was software issues and the fleet are still flying??
The point I am trying to make is unless you have a confirmed source of fault, and the aircraft passes the applicable function tests as per the AMM, why should you ground it??
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 3,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And ? . . . . . please elaborate.
Having said that ,if your previous posts are taken into consideration you do seem a fairly unlikely candidate for an unbiased factual " Ryanair posting".
Having said that ,if your previous posts are taken into consideration you do seem a fairly unlikely candidate for an unbiased factual " Ryanair posting".
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Stockport
Age: 84
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CVR recording time
It amazes me that the CVR overwrites its recording after only two hours. That may have been a resonable limit when such recorders were first introduced, since the motivation was to capture the conversation in the prelude to some catastrope. However in some recent events, such as the Qantas depressurisation and possibly the Ryanair incident, the recorder has not stopped until more than two hours later, so erasing potentially valuable information. Pulling the relevant circuit breaker in flight might preserve one lot of information, but if the landing should go wrong something even more valuable could be lost.
Since there are now small lightweight devices (think iPod) that can hold many hours of user-recorded music, what is to stop the current generation of CVRs being replaced with solid state devices capable of capturing everything said from ground power on to beyond final shut down on a maximum-range flight? If magnetic tape has better survivability than solid state memory, then a solid-state secondary recorder could still be a useful backup - tape to record the run-up to a catastrophic destruction, solid state to record a less severe event further back from the end of the flight.
Solid state recorders could be small and light enough for several to be installed in different places, to record the same things, increasing the chance that at least one would survive an accident in a usable condition.
Since there are now small lightweight devices (think iPod) that can hold many hours of user-recorded music, what is to stop the current generation of CVRs being replaced with solid state devices capable of capturing everything said from ground power on to beyond final shut down on a maximum-range flight? If magnetic tape has better survivability than solid state memory, then a solid-state secondary recorder could still be a useful backup - tape to record the run-up to a catastrophic destruction, solid state to record a less severe event further back from the end of the flight.
Solid state recorders could be small and light enough for several to be installed in different places, to record the same things, increasing the chance that at least one would survive an accident in a usable condition.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Jose
Posts: 727
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
what is to stop the current generation of CVRs being replaced with solid state devices capable of capturing everything said from ground power on to beyond final shut down on a maximum-range flight
Modern CVRs and FDRs are solid-state, basically a load of memory chips in a sealed titanium container with all the support electronics needed to write to them on the outside. On recovery the external electronics is discarded and the container is cut open and connected to a reader in the lab. The whole lot is inside the black box proper, so all the other fire/impact/water defences are still there. It's more reliable than tape because it has no mechanical component to wear out (or tape to snap/jam). It's also not cheap, although the incremental cost for a new build to put in 8 hrs instead of 2 hrs is probably quite small.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 3,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ASFKAP, if the incident is as you described, I am a little mystified as to the need for an emergency descent. The Ryanair/Boeing procedures are to try and control the pressurisation in the first instance, and if that fails initiate an emergency descent.
Without going into the manuals ,am I not correct in saying that the outflow valve should have been controllable in Manual regardless of the glitch in the cpc ? ergo no need for emergency descent according RYR procedures.
It is always emphasised in training not to rush into an emergency descent ( nor indeed an evacuation) but to first try to control the pressurisation, and only if that fails initiate the "plummet". . . . Ha Ha.
I hope that was indeed the sequence of events here, as the previous Limoges incident "may" have ended with a precipitious evacuation given the absence of fire or any life threatening circumstances ( with the caveat here being that the report hasn't been published so that opinion is firmly in the "rumours" section of rumours and news )
Without going into the manuals ,am I not correct in saying that the outflow valve should have been controllable in Manual regardless of the glitch in the cpc ? ergo no need for emergency descent according RYR procedures.
It is always emphasised in training not to rush into an emergency descent ( nor indeed an evacuation) but to first try to control the pressurisation, and only if that fails initiate the "plummet". . . . Ha Ha.
I hope that was indeed the sequence of events here, as the previous Limoges incident "may" have ended with a precipitious evacuation given the absence of fire or any life threatening circumstances ( with the caveat here being that the report hasn't been published so that opinion is firmly in the "rumours" section of rumours and news )
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Automatic Erase
Slip and Turn,
There is no automatic erase of the CVR after engine shut-down or by manually pulling the CB. The only way to erase the CVR is py pushing a big red button on the P5 panel that says 'erase'. This has to be pressed for a at least two seconds, and only if certain parameters are met (on gound logic etc.).
Donc
There is no automatic erase of the CVR after engine shut-down or by manually pulling the CB. The only way to erase the CVR is py pushing a big red button on the P5 panel that says 'erase'. This has to be pressed for a at least two seconds, and only if certain parameters are met (on gound logic etc.).
Donc
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 3,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With respect ASFKAP putting the genie back in the bottle is exactly what company SOP's call for. If (and if the outflow valve could be manually closed it is not such a big if) the pressurisation could be brought under control ( and it seems we believe that should have been poss) there is no requirment to initiate an emergency descent according to the RYR ( Boeing approved ) procedure. Indeed it would be less alarming / inconvenient if all had been returned to normal, A/C had continued to destination ,and pax didn't have to endure 6000fpm unpressurised descent as well as display of rubber jungle. Obviously the lack of O2 for any future problem would have necessitated a (normal) descent sooner rather than later, but fuel allowing you could certainly proceed to GRO from that point @ F100 routing a little East of normal track. All this assumes that you had identified and were happy that the problem was an outflow valve and not door/structure related and that there were no pressing medical issues with pax.
That is the procedure, and I'm ( for the moment) assuming they couldn't control the pressurisation otherwise they shouldn't have proceeded to Part2 - the emergency descent. That is Company S.O.P's believe me.
That is the procedure, and I'm ( for the moment) assuming they couldn't control the pressurisation otherwise they shouldn't have proceeded to Part2 - the emergency descent. That is Company S.O.P's believe me.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
captplaystation
Assuming the cabin diff was near zero then, at 1,000fpm it would take 7 or 8 mins to repressurise the cabin to where it should be. You have no idea of what is going on in the cabin (eg masks not dropped) and you are up there with no more 02 for the pax and cabin crew. To avoid alarm and inconvenience? And to possibly deservedly lose your job.
To my mind the best way is for the FO to carry out the sudden depressurisation checklist while the captain switches on the igniters, sets the lower FL in the altitude window and checks the msa - all to save vital seconds.
The sudden depressurisation checklist needs to be gone through but it is really for an immediately containable pressurisation glitch and to prepare the aircraft for the emergency descent.
To my mind the best way is for the FO to carry out the sudden depressurisation checklist while the captain switches on the igniters, sets the lower FL in the altitude window and checks the msa - all to save vital seconds.
The sudden depressurisation checklist needs to be gone through but it is really for an immediately containable pressurisation glitch and to prepare the aircraft for the emergency descent.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 3,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would guess running the outflow valve manually closed would give a more severe rate of descent ( from 37,000 down to 8000) than 1000fpm,anyhow you are not going to hang around 7 0r 8 mins watching the cabin altimeter. My guess is that the response to motoring the valve closed would be quite rapid, not nice for the ears, but then again neither is a 5-6000fpm unpressurised emergency descent or indeed a rapid climb from 8000 up to 37000 ? following the problem.
I know the outflow valve is a fairly large flap to have hanging open but I was always led to believe that the volume of air coming into the fuselage combined with the area concerned resulted in any decompression being less than "explosive" unless you lose your roof Aloha style, quite unlike a tiddler like a Lear.
Anyhow, finally I wasn't there, but it will be interesting to hear if the descent was warranted or whether control was indeed possible.
At the end of the day no harm done by getting it down sharpish, unless you forget you are over the Alps.
I know the outflow valve is a fairly large flap to have hanging open but I was always led to believe that the volume of air coming into the fuselage combined with the area concerned resulted in any decompression being less than "explosive" unless you lose your roof Aloha style, quite unlike a tiddler like a Lear.
Anyhow, finally I wasn't there, but it will be interesting to hear if the descent was warranted or whether control was indeed possible.
At the end of the day no harm done by getting it down sharpish, unless you forget you are over the Alps.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Paris
Age: 60
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My apologies if this has already been covered in this thread, but here goes:
BTW, I should point out that I'm a passnger; a very very frequent flier, but no more than that. Someday I may fly a 'plane, butthat will be my maximum exposure. I am not an expert.
Anyway, to the point: I distinctly remember reading several years ago in the book written by a passenger on the BA flight which ran into volcanic ash over Jakarta that one issue that the passengers had was that when the oxygen masks were deployed they all felt that they weren't working. They expected to feel flow against their face - possibly a cold flow.
I filed that away in my mind for future use if the situation arose.
Is it time to include a mention about how these things work in the emergency briefings? People may assume that its not working and remove them (since they're useles anyway) in order to ask the cabin crew to help them. Foreknowledge might alleviate that situation.
BTW, I should point out that I'm a passnger; a very very frequent flier, but no more than that. Someday I may fly a 'plane, butthat will be my maximum exposure. I am not an expert.
Anyway, to the point: I distinctly remember reading several years ago in the book written by a passenger on the BA flight which ran into volcanic ash over Jakarta that one issue that the passengers had was that when the oxygen masks were deployed they all felt that they weren't working. They expected to feel flow against their face - possibly a cold flow.
I filed that away in my mind for future use if the situation arose.
Is it time to include a mention about how these things work in the emergency briefings? People may assume that its not working and remove them (since they're useles anyway) in order to ask the cabin crew to help them. Foreknowledge might alleviate that situation.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by Nialler
...one issue that the passengers had was that when the oxygen masks were deployed they all felt that they weren't working. They expected to feel flow against their face - possibly a cold flow.
I filed that away in my mind for future use if the situation arose.
Is it time to include a mention about how these things work in the emergency briefings?
I filed that away in my mind for future use if the situation arose.
Is it time to include a mention about how these things work in the emergency briefings?
It is already included in airline briefings. When travelling as a passenger I have heard words to the effect 'the bag may not inflate but this is normal'. Maybe I'm just paying more attention than the average punter (present company excluded).
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Paris
Age: 60
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've flown several hundred times and I've never heard that in the announcements. Never.
Maybe some airlines do that.
I've been aware of the issue since reading that book "All Four Engines Have Gone", so I've actually been aware of the issue. Granted, most of my flights have been within Europe or with European airlines flying to and from the US and other continents.
I honestly can't remember ever hearing any briefing beyond the "look after yourself before looking after children etc" thing.
ETA: I may be wrong on this, but I tend to pay attention at the safety briefing and I honestly have never heard any caution that the oxygen masks don't give feedback that they're operational.
Maybe some airlines do that.
I've been aware of the issue since reading that book "All Four Engines Have Gone", so I've actually been aware of the issue. Granted, most of my flights have been within Europe or with European airlines flying to and from the US and other continents.
I honestly can't remember ever hearing any briefing beyond the "look after yourself before looking after children etc" thing.
ETA: I may be wrong on this, but I tend to pay attention at the safety briefing and I honestly have never heard any caution that the oxygen masks don't give feedback that they're operational.
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
People, it's there in the briefing- 'pull the mask to your mouth and nose and breath normally!'. So....you pull the mask to your mouth and nose and breath normally! Who said you have to 'see' the mask is working? You do as you are told! Make the emergency briefing any longer and nobody will watch- few enough do now, then get furious because something happened and they didn't know what to do. All you have to do is pull it to your face and it does its job! This is an emergency situation- if you can't obey the simple instruction, what happens to you is down to you. How can these people grizzle 'their masks were not working'? IF they were not working, they would have passed out. It takes longer to get a 737 into the descent than your survival time at 30,000'+. IMO, any attempt to repressurise the cabin would have led to more intense pain than than that inflicted on the descent. It would then have led to being at high altitude with no O2 left whatsoever should the pressure control go wrong again. Correct decision to descend IMO.
Reading recent posts about the CVR, it is an accident investigation device only to be used when the pilots are unable to testify. It is NOT an investigative device. Any need to study its contents, then you should be landing without delay, within its short remaining duration, not continuing a flight to land many hours later. Not a sensible suggestion considering the parameters of use placed upon it. It is NOT a spy device for regular monitoring- it is an accident investigation device only. That is why it is short duration overwriteable- that is all that is needed.
Reading recent posts about the CVR, it is an accident investigation device only to be used when the pilots are unable to testify. It is NOT an investigative device. Any need to study its contents, then you should be landing without delay, within its short remaining duration, not continuing a flight to land many hours later. Not a sensible suggestion considering the parameters of use placed upon it. It is NOT a spy device for regular monitoring- it is an accident investigation device only. That is why it is short duration overwriteable- that is all that is needed.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by Nialler
I've flown several hundred times and I've never heard that in the announcements. Never.
At the risk of appearing pedantic (although in this industry that's often seen as a positive thing) it has already been stated earlier on in this thread that the comment about bags not inflating is included in many airline briefings. Posts 32,36,37,42,43,44,75,76,97,108,109,161,184,201,210,237,346,3 49 and 534 all include comments to this effect in varying degrees of detail.
I just wish people would do the rest of us the courtesy of reading a bl**dy thread through from the beginning before piling in.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In my head
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree, baftabill, Groundhog day ... round we go again ... same old same old and no admitted anything.
No Rainboe, that has not been established because no-one has given any indication of how high the cabin went i.e. whether or not the passengers were actually exposed to any non-breathable low pressure, or whether it was just a perceived risk that they might have been without the emergency actions by the crew.
No-one has reported what actually went wrong with this aircraft which apparently had so little wrong with it, that it flew again very soon, so on the strength of the evidence in this thread, no-one can be accredited as a text book flyer in this one just yet.
You won't have heard it in a Ryanair briefing because no such words are part of any Ryanair briefing. As for the possibility of your above-average attention to detail, did you not already see that your conclusion was wrong from previous mention and correction of the same thing earlier in this thread?
Oh well, looks like I'll have to climb onboard one or the same this weekend still wondering ...
... and again on the way back - round we go again ... 
Originally Posted by Rainboe
IF they were not working, they would have passed out.
No-one has reported what actually went wrong with this aircraft which apparently had so little wrong with it, that it flew again very soon, so on the strength of the evidence in this thread, no-one can be accredited as a text book flyer in this one just yet.
Originally Posted by Flintstone
It is already included in airline briefings. When travelling as a passenger I have heard words to the effect 'the bag may not inflate but this is normal'. Maybe I'm just paying more attention than the average punter (present company excluded)..
Oh well, looks like I'll have to climb onboard one or the same this weekend still wondering ...
... and again on the way back - round we go again ...
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by slip and turn
You won't have heard it in a Ryanair briefing because no such words are part of any Ryanair briefing.
Originally Posted by slip and turn
As for the possibility of your above-average* attention to detail, did you not already see that your conclusion was wrong from previous mention and correction of the same thing earlier in this thread?
My point was that it I have heard it. Others wrote that they have too. Doesn't really matter which airlines do it, the fact remains that some do. Given that this is so how is my conclusion "wrong"?
*Me? Above average? Why, thank you.
Last edited by Flintstone; 5th Sep 2008 at 00:43.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: timbuktu
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Rainboe - "warning toxic" is well merited for you. Glad you have a genius IQ even if the rest of us (including this Cambridge graduate) don't.
I am tired of people assuming that pax would have passed out and died.
Do you not realise that most people can survive (and remain conscious) for 1 or more minutes without oxygen?
Freedivers better than myself can do it for up to 7 minutes!
I am tired of people assuming that pax would have passed out and died.
Do you not realise that most people can survive (and remain conscious) for 1 or more minutes without oxygen?
Freedivers better than myself can do it for up to 7 minutes!
Rather old then bold
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Sweden
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Marchino61.
It's NOT about "holding your breath" or anything. At 30 000+ the oxygen in the blood actually traversers out of the blood and back to the lungs. Pure oxygen has the ability to go into the bloodstream even at those altitudes.
Thus the available contious time at those altitudes are measured in seconds (about 5-10 seconds for most people) before you loose the ability to function rationally. Another 10 seconds and you're unconsious.
THATS why the say that you should put on your own mask first - THEN help others.
Mj A
It's NOT about "holding your breath" or anything. At 30 000+ the oxygen in the blood actually traversers out of the blood and back to the lungs. Pure oxygen has the ability to go into the bloodstream even at those altitudes.
Thus the available contious time at those altitudes are measured in seconds (about 5-10 seconds for most people) before you loose the ability to function rationally. Another 10 seconds and you're unconsious.
THATS why the say that you should put on your own mask first - THEN help others.
Mj A