A340/330 Mel
Our MEL says:
The fire extinguishing may be
inoperative in one or more cargo
compartments provided
associated cargo compartment is
empty or does not contain
inflammable or combustible
materials.
inoperative in one or more cargo
compartments provided
associated cargo compartment is
empty or does not contain
inflammable or combustible
materials.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Choroni, sometimes
Posts: 1,974
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@404 Titan
...in one or more cargo
compartments provided
associated cargo compartment is
empty or does not contain
inflammable or combustible
materials.
....Associated cargo compartment.....
That's what our MEL says as well.
So, if Agent 1 was used in Aft Cargo hold, e.g. due to false warning, Fwd Cargo can be loaded normally, right?
...in one or more cargo
compartments provided
associated cargo compartment is
empty or does not contain
inflammable or combustible
materials.
....Associated cargo compartment.....
That's what our MEL says as well.
So, if Agent 1 was used in Aft Cargo hold, e.g. due to false warning, Fwd Cargo can be loaded normally, right?
hetfield
I have reproduced the entire remarks column from our MEL for the A330 regarding the cargo fire bottles. My interpretation is that if bottle 1 (instant discharge bottle) is U/S the entire cargo fire fighting system is considered US and therefore would have to comply with the first note. If bottle 2 (slow metered bottle) was U/S I could dispatch as long as I could land within 1 hour from any point in the flight. If I want to dispatch ETOPS then both bottles must be serviceable. Remember there are only two bottles and they protect both the forward and aft cargo compartment depending which squib is pushed. If they are discharged into the aft cargo compartment for example there is nothing left to fight a second possible fire in the forward cargo compartment and vv. So in answer to your question, no you couldn’t load the forward cargo compartment unless you can comply with the first “Note”.
I have reproduced the entire remarks column from our MEL for the A330 regarding the cargo fire bottles. My interpretation is that if bottle 1 (instant discharge bottle) is U/S the entire cargo fire fighting system is considered US and therefore would have to comply with the first note. If bottle 2 (slow metered bottle) was U/S I could dispatch as long as I could land within 1 hour from any point in the flight. If I want to dispatch ETOPS then both bottles must be serviceable. Remember there are only two bottles and they protect both the forward and aft cargo compartment depending which squib is pushed. If they are discharged into the aft cargo compartment for example there is nothing left to fight a second possible fire in the forward cargo compartment and vv. So in answer to your question, no you couldn’t load the forward cargo compartment unless you can comply with the first “Note”.
NOTE
The fire extinguishing may be
inoperative in one or more cargo
compartments provided
associated cargo compartment is
empty or does not contain
inflammable or combustible
materials.
Agent 2 bottle may be inoperative
provided:
Flight routes allow landing within one
hour.
ETOPS
Both bottles are required for
ETOPS dispatch. If dispatch is
made with one bottle inoperative,
raise a PADD downgrading
aircraft to Non ETOPS.
The fire extinguishing may be
inoperative in one or more cargo
compartments provided
associated cargo compartment is
empty or does not contain
inflammable or combustible
materials.
Agent 2 bottle may be inoperative
provided:
Flight routes allow landing within one
hour.
ETOPS
Both bottles are required for
ETOPS dispatch. If dispatch is
made with one bottle inoperative,
raise a PADD downgrading
aircraft to Non ETOPS.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Choroni, sometimes
Posts: 1,974
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hetfield
I have reproduced the entire remarks column from our MEL for the A330 regarding the cargo fire bottles. My interpretation is that if bottle 1 (instant discharge bottle) is U/S the entire cargo fire fighting system is considered US and therefore would have to comply with the first note. If bottle 2 (slow metered bottle) was U/S I could dispatch as long as I could land within 1 hour from any point in the flight. If I want to dispatch ETOPS then both bottles must be serviceable. Remember there are only two bottles and they protect both the forward and aft cargo compartment depending which squib is pushed. If they are discharged into the aft cargo compartment for example there is nothing left to fight a second possible fire in the forward cargo compartment and vv. So in answer to your question, no you couldn’t load the forward cargo compartment unless you can comply with the first “Note”.
I have reproduced the entire remarks column from our MEL for the A330 regarding the cargo fire bottles. My interpretation is that if bottle 1 (instant discharge bottle) is U/S the entire cargo fire fighting system is considered US and therefore would have to comply with the first note. If bottle 2 (slow metered bottle) was U/S I could dispatch as long as I could land within 1 hour from any point in the flight. If I want to dispatch ETOPS then both bottles must be serviceable. Remember there are only two bottles and they protect both the forward and aft cargo compartment depending which squib is pushed. If they are discharged into the aft cargo compartment for example there is nothing left to fight a second possible fire in the forward cargo compartment and vv. So in answer to your question, no you couldn’t load the forward cargo compartment unless you can comply with the first “Note”.
hetfield
As you know there is only one pb sw for the forward and one for the aft cargo compartment. So if you pressed the aft cargo extinguisher pb sw as you have stated, the system will discharge both bottles into the associated compartment. If one of the bottles, in this case bottle one fails to fire, bottle two should still fire. The SDCU senses you have fired the aft cargo fire agents but bottle one has malfunctioned and hasn’t fired. The associated BTL 1 light would then fail to illuminate. The system is now considered INOP for the other cargo compartment despite agent still being in bottle one. In this case the forward.
While I can see where you are coming from regarding the MEL, you have just got to interpret it by what it is not saying, if you know what I mean?
As you know there is only one pb sw for the forward and one for the aft cargo compartment. So if you pressed the aft cargo extinguisher pb sw as you have stated, the system will discharge both bottles into the associated compartment. If one of the bottles, in this case bottle one fails to fire, bottle two should still fire. The SDCU senses you have fired the aft cargo fire agents but bottle one has malfunctioned and hasn’t fired. The associated BTL 1 light would then fail to illuminate. The system is now considered INOP for the other cargo compartment despite agent still being in bottle one. In this case the forward.
While I can see where you are coming from regarding the MEL, you have just got to interpret it by what it is not saying, if you know what I mean?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Choroni, sometimes
Posts: 1,974
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
404 Titan
Bottle 2 has a restrictor!
From the AOM:
"The discharge cartridge of bottle 2 comprises a flow metering system, and so fire extinguishing agent is discharged slowly into the compartment to ensure sufficient agent concentration for 120 minutes."
(Some have 240 min instead of 120 min.)
Again, if Bottle 1 inop/empty, you have no immediate fire fighting for NEITHER compartment. (Bottle 1 discharges in 60 sec).
So, "associated Compartment" like the MEL says is pure rubbish.
Bottle 2 has a restrictor!
From the AOM:
"The discharge cartridge of bottle 2 comprises a flow metering system, and so fire extinguishing agent is discharged slowly into the compartment to ensure sufficient agent concentration for 120 minutes."
(Some have 240 min instead of 120 min.)
Again, if Bottle 1 inop/empty, you have no immediate fire fighting for NEITHER compartment. (Bottle 1 discharges in 60 sec).
So, "associated Compartment" like the MEL says is pure rubbish.
hetfield
I agree with you the word “associated” is a bad word. Lets just replace it with “both” which we know that is what it really means because we both know how the system works, right? Maybe it was lost in the translation from French to English, who knows?
That being said, if you comply with the first “Note”, you will be complying with the intent of the MEL.
Somehow I think we are in heated agreement, mind you I really don’t feel that heated. Relax.
I agree with you the word “associated” is a bad word. Lets just replace it with “both” which we know that is what it really means because we both know how the system works, right? Maybe it was lost in the translation from French to English, who knows?
That being said, if you comply with the first “Note”, you will be complying with the intent of the MEL.
Somehow I think we are in heated agreement, mind you I really don’t feel that heated. Relax.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Over The Hills And Far Away
Posts: 676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, "associated Compartment" like the MEL says is pure rubbish.
As bottle 1 can discharge it's agent into either fwd or aft cargo, there must be a squib, pipes, wiring and associated controls for each cargo compartment. Any of these components U/S will render the fire extinguishing inoperative in the associated compartment.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Choroni, sometimes
Posts: 1,974
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, not really.
As bottle 1 can discharge it's agent into either fwd or aft cargo, there must be a squib, pipes, wiring and associated controls for each cargo compartment. Any of these components U/S will render the fire extinguishing inoperative in the associated compartment.
As bottle 1 can discharge it's agent into either fwd or aft cargo, there must be a squib, pipes, wiring and associated controls for each cargo compartment. Any of these components U/S will render the fire extinguishing inoperative in the associated compartment.
But where is the correct MEL-reference for an inop/used Bottle 1 for A330/340?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Choroni, sometimes
Posts: 1,974
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hetfield
I agree with you the word “associated” is a bad word. Lets just replace it with “both” which we know that is what it really means because we both know how the system works, right? Maybe it was lost in the translation from French to English, who knows?
That being said, if you comply with the first “Note”, you will be complying with the intent of the MEL.
Somehow I think we are in heated agreement, mind you I really don’t feel that heated. Relax.
I agree with you the word “associated” is a bad word. Lets just replace it with “both” which we know that is what it really means because we both know how the system works, right? Maybe it was lost in the translation from French to English, who knows?
That being said, if you comply with the first “Note”, you will be complying with the intent of the MEL.
Somehow I think we are in heated agreement, mind you I really don’t feel that heated. Relax.
And, I'm only heated when my girlfriend arrives
Hope the MEL will not become a trap for some fellows......
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Over The Hills And Far Away
Posts: 676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't see what there is to be confused about.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Choroni, sometimes
Posts: 1,974
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Techman
Let's assume one takes an 330/340 with a techlog entry like
"Aft Cargo Cmpt smoke warning on Grd. Aft agent discharged."
The warning turned out to be false but agent 1 was used.
One takes the now the MEL and reads
The fire extinguishing may be
inoperative in one or more cargo
compartments provided
associated cargo compartment is
empty or does not contain
inflammable or combustible
materials.
You got it?
Let's assume one takes an 330/340 with a techlog entry like
"Aft Cargo Cmpt smoke warning on Grd. Aft agent discharged."
The warning turned out to be false but agent 1 was used.
One takes the now the MEL and reads
The fire extinguishing may be
inoperative in one or more cargo
compartments provided
associated cargo compartment is
empty or does not contain
inflammable or combustible
materials.
You got it?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Over The Hills And Far Away
Posts: 676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Again, the MEL note is pretty clear. Only bottle 2 may be inoperative. So obviously bottle 1 may not. Unless the compartments are empty or does not contain inflammable or combustible materials.
As it is the bottle that is U/S, both fwd and aft compartments are obviously associated compartments.
As it is the bottle that is U/S, both fwd and aft compartments are obviously associated compartments.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: .
Posts: 2,997
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Techman
Let's assume one takes an 330/340 with a techlog entry like
"Aft Cargo Cmpt smoke warning on Grd. Aft agent discharged."
The warning turned out to be false but agent 1 was used.
One takes the now the MEL and reads
The fire extinguishing may be
inoperative in one or more cargo
compartments provided
associated cargo compartment is
empty or does not contain
inflammable or combustible
materials.
You got it?
Let's assume one takes an 330/340 with a techlog entry like
"Aft Cargo Cmpt smoke warning on Grd. Aft agent discharged."
The warning turned out to be false but agent 1 was used.
One takes the now the MEL and reads
The fire extinguishing may be
inoperative in one or more cargo
compartments provided
associated cargo compartment is
empty or does not contain
inflammable or combustible
materials.
You got it?
It says Installed 2, Nbr reqd 1 : And that must be No1 bottle. As it says no2 bottle may be inop by inference that means No1 must be operative.
The note means that if the extinquishing system, for whatever reason in the aft cargo hold is inop it can not be used, you can only use the fwd one. But if it is because of bottle 1 discharge you're going nowhere end of story. Because bottle 1 has to be installed.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Choroni, sometimes
Posts: 1,974
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No you're reading it wrong
It says Installed 2, Nbr reqd 1 : And that must be No1 bottle. As it says no2 bottle may be inop by inference that means No1 must be operative.
The note means that if the extinquishing system, for whatever reason in the aft cargo hold is inop it can not be used, you can only use the fwd one. But if it is because of bottle 1 discharge you're going nowhere end of story. Because bottle 1 has to be installed.
It says Installed 2, Nbr reqd 1 : And that must be No1 bottle. As it says no2 bottle may be inop by inference that means No1 must be operative.
The note means that if the extinquishing system, for whatever reason in the aft cargo hold is inop it can not be used, you can only use the fwd one. But if it is because of bottle 1 discharge you're going nowhere end of story. Because bottle 1 has to be installed.
Agent 1 u/s,
both Cargo Compartments must be empty.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: .
Posts: 2,997
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps not reading but interpretation maybe.
I think the thing here is the note - the note doesn't just refer to bottles it is cargo extinguishing! i.e. all of mel 26-23 (I think is, I was looking at our 330 MEL).
The next bit of the MEL refers to the agent bottles.
The next bit refers to squibs, and so on.
To me if the MEL says nbr installed 2, reqd 1, only agent 2 bottle may be inop (used or whatever) then no1 agents bottle must be serviceable.
It maybe worth having a chat with your maintrol, they are normally on the ball with this sort of thing as they deal with this sort of stuff all the time.
Of course we can just blame the French for writing things this way
I think the thing here is the note - the note doesn't just refer to bottles it is cargo extinguishing! i.e. all of mel 26-23 (I think is, I was looking at our 330 MEL).
The next bit of the MEL refers to the agent bottles.
The next bit refers to squibs, and so on.
To me if the MEL says nbr installed 2, reqd 1, only agent 2 bottle may be inop (used or whatever) then no1 agents bottle must be serviceable.
It maybe worth having a chat with your maintrol, they are normally on the ball with this sort of thing as they deal with this sort of stuff all the time.
Of course we can just blame the French for writing things this way