Flight Data Recorder-Emer Descent
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Planet earth
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flight Data Recorder-Emer Descent
I have heard of a pilot from another company who just had to do a Emergency descent
The company is retreiving the Data from the DFDR. The company has informed him that they are using this data.For the Safety investigation.
What legal steps should he take to protect himself ?
They can take the data for safety purposes. What about them the management using the safety net to protect themseves from their errors ?
Could someone please pass any links on this and-or regulations.
This incident was partly caused by an error in the MEL
I guess the whoever signed the MEL is partly responsable in the chain.
Apparently a number of the masks did not drop and the cabin crew masks did not work ( Pending confirmation )
Thanks in advance
The company is retreiving the Data from the DFDR. The company has informed him that they are using this data.For the Safety investigation.
What legal steps should he take to protect himself ?
They can take the data for safety purposes. What about them the management using the safety net to protect themseves from their errors ?
Could someone please pass any links on this and-or regulations.
This incident was partly caused by an error in the MEL
I guess the whoever signed the MEL is partly responsable in the chain.
Apparently a number of the masks did not drop and the cabin crew masks did not work ( Pending confirmation )
Thanks in advance
Last edited by Jimmy Hoffa Rocks; 30th Oct 2010 at 20:55.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Skating away on the thin ice of a new day.
Posts: 1,116
Received 13 Likes
on
8 Posts
Jimmy it depends on the attitude of the company, the regulator and the circumstances.
Good luck to the pilots and engineers concerned.
As for some masks not dropping.Not unusual.They are only as good as the last test. The latches can be finicky and mask packing which is not quite an exact science.All adds up to a few fail to deploys.
there are spare masks of course to hopefully cover this eventuality.
Good luck to the pilots and engineers concerned.
As for some masks not dropping.Not unusual.They are only as good as the last test. The latches can be finicky and mask packing which is not quite an exact science.All adds up to a few fail to deploys.
there are spare masks of course to hopefully cover this eventuality.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: La Belle Province
Posts: 2,179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the pilot concerned does not trust his own company to do the investigation fairly and diligently, one option would be ensure that the relevant air safety board and airworthiness authority are aware of the incident (filing a service difficulty report, perhaps?). Having an independent third party doing the investigating would presumably quell any fears about the company biasing the investigation.
Of course, that only works if HE feels he didn't do anything wrong - otherwise its like calling the cops to report someone stole your drug stash...
Of course, that only works if HE feels he didn't do anything wrong - otherwise its like calling the cops to report someone stole your drug stash...
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Planet earth
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No Maurice .Pilot did not jeopodize safety, management did by not correcting an MEL error.
Thanks good idea about third party investigating.
Good no one hurt.
A victim as the MEL did not have the MEL restriction 31,500 for this serial number as other A/C do. Aircraft flew above 31,500. Would think Airbus should be involved.
Why is it that some aircraft dont have the 31,500 restriction, makes me think twice about going above 31,500 with 1 Pack inop or Bleed if the A-320 has been around for a while. Any thoughts ?
A-320 with both Packs Faulting, and a Bleed Abnormal Pr. Old A-C
Error in the system and organizational culture, perhaps.
Will post some more info, once I get it.
( Intention not to lay blame rather than what action can be taken to prevent recoccurence )
Appreciate the input, cheers
Thanks good idea about third party investigating.
Good no one hurt.
A victim as the MEL did not have the MEL restriction 31,500 for this serial number as other A/C do. Aircraft flew above 31,500. Would think Airbus should be involved.
Why is it that some aircraft dont have the 31,500 restriction, makes me think twice about going above 31,500 with 1 Pack inop or Bleed if the A-320 has been around for a while. Any thoughts ?
A-320 with both Packs Faulting, and a Bleed Abnormal Pr. Old A-C
Error in the system and organizational culture, perhaps.
Will post some more info, once I get it.
( Intention not to lay blame rather than what action can be taken to prevent recoccurence )
Appreciate the input, cheers
Last edited by Jimmy Hoffa Rocks; 30th Oct 2010 at 22:55.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Gangster Paradise, RSA
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A normal, or should I say, decent airline has a proper SMS in place, where pulling data out of the QADR's are used to improve safety, and are not intended to be used in a punitive way, unless safety was deliberately jeopardized. This pilot should have filled out an "Air Incident Report", detailing the occurrence. If this pilot made a "mistake", the data collected should be used to avoid future happenings and not be used as a blame towards that individual. Hope this satisfies your query.
Last edited by Maurice Chavez; 30th Oct 2010 at 23:00.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Skating away on the thin ice of a new day.
Posts: 1,116
Received 13 Likes
on
8 Posts
Why is it that some aircraft dont have the 31,500 restriction, makes me think twice about going above 31,500 with 1 Pack inop or Bleed if the A-320 has been around for a while. Any thoughts ?
That appears to be a serious error in the DDG and to have a fleet where some can and some cannot is asking for a stuff up. Is the DDG/MEL actually correct and agree with the Master MEL?
Are the aircraft just listed as serial numbers or registrations too?
As this kind of restriction is common on many aircraft I wonder your friend thought to query the lack of restriction and if so what advice was given?
Unless some S/No aircraft are fitted with kick ar$e air con packs that can do the job at higher altitudes and the aircraft can do an emerg descent in the req'd time??
Jimmy;
There is a thread in R&N discussing the use of the CVR in court proceedings. While this isn't your issue, some of the discussion may be helpful as it applies to "not using safety information for enforcement or discipline proceedings against flight crews" but using data as a preventative flight safety tool.
On the MEL item, without full information it is difficult to comment, but management aren't the only ones responsible for the correctness of the MEL. The Regulator, through the airline's or region's POI (Principle Operations Inspector - liason with the regulator) is responsible for the MEL because the document is first approved by the regulator.
Others here say it well; in an established SMS culture, using the data for anything but understanding and prevention likely won't occur. An airline pulling the data and/or the CVR is not unusual in a reportable incident.
Crew identity isn't an issue here, of course. And if a simulator session or two result from some aspects of the emergency maneuver, it is considered due diligence on the part of the airline to ensure standards are met and SOPs done correctly. An extra sim session is not "punishment" but a responsible outcome the need for which may be indicated in the data. Not pleasant perhaps, but it's not blame or enforcement.
PJ2
There is a thread in R&N discussing the use of the CVR in court proceedings. While this isn't your issue, some of the discussion may be helpful as it applies to "not using safety information for enforcement or discipline proceedings against flight crews" but using data as a preventative flight safety tool.
On the MEL item, without full information it is difficult to comment, but management aren't the only ones responsible for the correctness of the MEL. The Regulator, through the airline's or region's POI (Principle Operations Inspector - liason with the regulator) is responsible for the MEL because the document is first approved by the regulator.
Others here say it well; in an established SMS culture, using the data for anything but understanding and prevention likely won't occur. An airline pulling the data and/or the CVR is not unusual in a reportable incident.
Crew identity isn't an issue here, of course. And if a simulator session or two result from some aspects of the emergency maneuver, it is considered due diligence on the part of the airline to ensure standards are met and SOPs done correctly. An extra sim session is not "punishment" but a responsible outcome the need for which may be indicated in the data. Not pleasant perhaps, but it's not blame or enforcement.
PJ2
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Planet earth
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bleed Abnormal Pressure
I understand that the older aircraft departed with Bleed 1 Inoperative
The MEL they had was confusing on it. One of the options is to leave
So only Airbus and Safety department doing the investigation as far as I know
You would think the Authority would be involved, will look into it
Had 1 Eng Bleed Fault then
Eng 2 Bleed Abnormal Pressure
Then both Packs failing.Pack 1 plus 2 faults
What causes a Bleed fault ?
Also could anyone she some light in ref to the OEB Dual Bleed I gues there are a number of cases then ?
Apparently the cabin rate of climb went rather rapidly to 14,500 cabin altitiude
They were at 36,000 feet if I am correct
The crew declared Mayday then cancelled the Mayday once stabilized as they were able to reset the system and continue pressurized
Y
The MEL they had was confusing on it. One of the options is to leave
So only Airbus and Safety department doing the investigation as far as I know
You would think the Authority would be involved, will look into it
Had 1 Eng Bleed Fault then
Eng 2 Bleed Abnormal Pressure
Then both Packs failing.Pack 1 plus 2 faults
What causes a Bleed fault ?
Also could anyone she some light in ref to the OEB Dual Bleed I gues there are a number of cases then ?
Apparently the cabin rate of climb went rather rapidly to 14,500 cabin altitiude
They were at 36,000 feet if I am correct
The crew declared Mayday then cancelled the Mayday once stabilized as they were able to reset the system and continue pressurized
Y
So only Airbus and Safety department doing the investigation as far as I know
You would think the Authority would be involved, will look into it
You would think the Authority would be involved, will look into it
Nobody seriously injured and the aircraft landed safely, might only require the incident be investigated by the certificate holder under "Continued Airworthiness" and reported to the regulator. The decision of standards of reporting lie with the regulator and/or a countries investigating agency.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jimmy,
you are correct in your point relating to the 31,500ft restriction for older MSN departing with a bleed inop., departure should be with the x-bleed selector sw open. The APU can be left running for bleed air supply if required also.
There is an OEB for a bleed indicating abnormal pressure, this procedure provides steps to reduce pneumatic loading on that bleed and requires monitoring of the pre-cooler outlet temperature. This is an effort to protect your good bleed. However if I dispatched in single bleed config and saw problems developing with the second bleed i would be getting down quickly.
Of course if both bleeds fail, both packs will fault with no air to serve them, and the cabin starts climbing. There is then an abnormal fcom procedure (not directed by ecam) for AIR DUAL BLEED FAULT.
Bleed faults are caused by overpressure, overheat, wing or engine leak, valve not closed during engine start, bleed not closed with apu bleed on.
you are correct in your point relating to the 31,500ft restriction for older MSN departing with a bleed inop., departure should be with the x-bleed selector sw open. The APU can be left running for bleed air supply if required also.
There is an OEB for a bleed indicating abnormal pressure, this procedure provides steps to reduce pneumatic loading on that bleed and requires monitoring of the pre-cooler outlet temperature. This is an effort to protect your good bleed. However if I dispatched in single bleed config and saw problems developing with the second bleed i would be getting down quickly.
Of course if both bleeds fail, both packs will fault with no air to serve them, and the cabin starts climbing. There is then an abnormal fcom procedure (not directed by ecam) for AIR DUAL BLEED FAULT.
Bleed faults are caused by overpressure, overheat, wing or engine leak, valve not closed during engine start, bleed not closed with apu bleed on.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Planet earth
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Passenger and Flight Attendant Oxygen Mask
The flight attendants could not get Oxygen as their masks did not work
Very very Old 320
They had to change seats to get oxygen
According to maintenance the FA masks were working, sounds suspicous
Any ideas ?
Very very Old 320
They had to change seats to get oxygen
According to maintenance the FA masks were working, sounds suspicous
Any ideas ?
