Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Tech Log
Reload this Page >

how to handle a rapid decompression over the Pacific ?


Notices
Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

how to handle a rapid decompression over the Pacific ?

Old 13th September 2011 | 20:44
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 105
Likes: 1
From: Asia
how to handle a rapid decompression over the Pacific ?

is there any specific procedure for over pacific ocean?
many thanks!
flycold is offline  
Reply
Old 13th September 2011 | 20:50
  #2 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 18,575
Likes: 4
From: UK
Same as any ETOPS route assuming you mean a twin?
BOAC is offline  
Reply
Old 13th September 2011 | 20:51
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
From: Somewhere
You have to breathe...so you either have the O2 system to stay up there at alt, providing for you and pax, or you come down to an alt where you the O2 system can provide for you and pax, or you come down to an alt where you can now breathe ambient air...What ever alt you end up at, to breathe and not be a pilot Popsicle, now you have to consider your new fuel burn, that if planned for, you can make to your destination.

Can your average airliner leaving LAX, once hitting the half way point, continue at alt providing O2 for everyone or do they have to come down and now have enough fuel at the lower ALT to make it to Hawaii.

It's a loaded question and I would really love someone to show me how 150 passengers could be provided 2.5 hours worth of O2 at 39000 feet.
whenrealityhurts is offline  
Reply
Old 13th September 2011 | 21:01
  #4 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 105
Likes: 1
From: Asia
Both ETOPS or non ETOPS flight. even 4 eng aircraft as well.
Generally "descend to 10,000ft or MSA whichever is higher and land at the suitable airport ASAP."
But I just wonder any specific procedure and considerations for when I fly over the pacific ocean.
Thanks again!
flycold is offline  
Reply
Old 13th September 2011 | 21:04
  #5 (permalink)  
20 Anniversary
 
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 954
Likes: 5
From: USA
Masks on, throttles idle, nose down with an offset turn, emergency descent checklist. Make the required radio calls. Level off at the altitude planned for this contingency at the appropriate lateral offset distance. Establish planned contingency airspeed and course appropriate for contingency destination. Notify ATC as required. Hope and constantly check that your contingency fuel planning was adequate.

Hopefully your pre-flight review of the contingency planning leaves you with some modicum of confidence in your new prospects!
westhawk is offline  
Reply
Old 13th September 2011 | 22:32
  #6 (permalink)  
20 Anniversary
 
Joined: Jan 2003
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 279
Likes: 17
From: Europe
Considering the fuel requirement for such an occasion: Additional Fuel (called critical fuel at our outfit for such a case) should be carried on such a flight:

Critical Fuel is the fuel required at the most critical point along the routes, if a loss of one or two engines or loss of pressurisation occurs, to
  • descent according to procedure and continue with LRC to a suitable AD and
  • hold there for 15 min at 1.500' AAL
  • and make an approach and landing
Critical fuel is of course only required, if the calculated minimum fuel is not sufficient for such an event.

Regards,
DBate
DBate is offline  
Reply
Old 14th September 2011 | 18:01
  #7 (permalink)  
50 Countries Visited
15 Anniversary
 
Joined: Nov 2007
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 30
From: Texas
We had three fuel calculations on the paperwork OAK-HNL.

1. How much fuel we needed to fly the leg plus alternate and reserve - almost irrelevant except to plan a landing weight.

2. How much fuel we needed to get to the ETP, lose an engine, drift down and keep going in the middle 20 thousand levels.

3. How much fuel we needed to get to the ETP, decompress, dive to 10,000 and press on with all engines.

Number three was always the highest number. If we decompressed AND lost an engine I think we had a wet footprint in the middle.
MarkerInbound is offline  
Reply
Old 14th September 2011 | 22:40
  #8 (permalink)  
25 Anniversary
 
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 476
Likes: 2
quote "I would really love someone to show me how 150 passengers could be provided 2.5 hours worth of O2 at 39000 feet. "

low level fuel burn and resultant range is but one question posed by a depress burn. Those of you thinking of staying high to reduce resultant fuel burn (forgetting the pesky pax down the back and their O2 requirements) are not considering the very real danger of nitrogen coming out of solution in the bloodstream / joints .
fire wall is offline  
Reply
Old 14th September 2011 | 22:53
  #9 (permalink)  
20 Anniversary
 
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,581
Likes: 0
From: flyover country USA
Is there any situation for a 3 or 4 engine a/c where at FL100, greater range can be had with an engine shut down? I propose this based on the fact engines are optimized for cruise @ FL300 and up, and thus run at very low disoptimized thrust at low altitude; SFC is thus higher.

Might be better to run fewer engines at higher thrust!

barit1 is offline  
Reply
Old 15th September 2011 | 00:43
  #10 (permalink)  
Community Builder
20 Anniversary
 
Joined: Dec 2002
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 3,984
Likes: 568
From: Where the Quaboag River flows, USA
Barit1

I'm sure there are, the P-3 patrol planes did it regularly. But, I doubt you could do it in public transport. The data is unlikely to be available to determine when an engine shutdown would be advatageous.

GF
galaxy flyer is offline  
Reply
Old 15th September 2011 | 00:53
  #11 (permalink)  
20 Anniversary
 
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,188
Likes: 6
From: La Belle Province
Nimrod also routinely shut down 2 of 4 for low level patrol IIRC. But redundancy calcs are predicated on keeping as many engines running as you can. No-one's going to encourage commercial pilots to shut down a healthy engine.
Mad (Flt) Scientist is offline  
Reply
Old 15th September 2011 | 01:18
  #12 (permalink)  
Guest
 
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
From: On the Beach
Markerinbound:

Number three was always the highest number. If we decompressed AND lost an engine I think we had a wet footprint in the middle.
Not allowed for Part 121 ops.
aterpster is offline  
Reply
Old 15th September 2011 | 02:00
  #13 (permalink)  
Community Builder
20 Anniversary
 
Joined: Dec 2002
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 3,984
Likes: 568
From: Where the Quaboag River flows, USA
It's a loaded question and I would really love someone to show me how 150 passengers could be provided 2.5 hours worth of O2 at 39000 feet.
Two words: Liquid Oxygen. The C-5 had 100 liters, as I remember, the system could supply everyone at FL 240 for almost 6 hours. So, no issues there. Since leaving everyone on masks for that long was a bit inhumane, we planned depressed at FL 100.

In my corporate operation, like 121 ops, we have to have a dry footprint at FL 100, depressed or dry footprint OEI at OEI optimum cruise level. Have to inquire about OEI and depressed. I suspect on most routes, it is possible.

My most challenging sector was Petropavlovsk to Taihiti, had to fly LRC to make dry prints between Christmas and Taihiti and then just barely when depressurization was planned for. Russian exit points really fouled that one up.

GF
galaxy flyer is offline  
Reply
Old 15th September 2011 | 04:53
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,127
Likes: 0
From: Yellow Brick Road
Question: Why does the descent have to be at max speed ? Why risk a structural overspeed instead of a low-speed stall ? Surely the RoD is more important to get down to 10,000' asap ?

e.g. A320 QRH Emer Descent : "Descend at the max appropriate speed."
e.g. B737NG FCTM Rapid Descent : "Target speed MMO/VMO".

Explanation appreciated.
ReverseFlight is offline  
Reply
Old 15th September 2011 | 05:17
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 299
Likes: 0
From: Madison, WI
If we decompressed AND lost an engine I think we had a wet footprint in the middle.
Is it possible you'd get a slightly better range because of one less engine. Just wondering...
ross_M is offline  
Reply
Old 15th September 2011 | 05:29
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,127
Likes: 0
From: Yellow Brick Road
ross, in case you were responding to my post, I was referring to a rapid decompression over the Pacific (the original subject of this thread) assuming both engines running, therefore OEI and terrain issues are irrelevant. Perhaps I didn't make myself clear.
ReverseFlight is offline  
Reply
Old 15th September 2011 | 05:48
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 299
Likes: 0
From: Madison, WI
@ReverseFlight:

I was responding to MarkerInbound. My question was whether a ( decompression + lost engine ) be better than just a decompression from range considerations alone.
ross_M is offline  
Reply
Old 15th September 2011 | 05:51
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
From: fl
Regululations would not allow an airliner to cross the Pacific and not have a procedure to land at destination or return without everybody alive. We had a rogue chief pilot that wanted to fly from LAX to HNL with no supplemental oxygen even though we had the space. I refused and told the company why I wouldn't do it because ditching was the possible outcome. Common sense will prevail in these matters.
bubbers44 is offline  
Reply
Old 15th September 2011 | 09:41
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 205
Likes: 25
From: Al's Diner
Is it possible you'd get a slightly better range because of one less engine. Just wondering...
Yes, for the 737 that is the case.

If you look at the long range cruise tables at 10,000'. Fuel Flow is about 10% more for the 2 engine case.

Our company works on decompression (2 engine) as the most fuel critical scenario for ETOPS planning. They don't use LRC as the speed schedule, but the result is the same - decompression (2eng) is more limiting.

Establish planned contingency airspeed
For us, planned speed is simply that - planned speed to establish the area of operation. There is no need to actually fly at that speed if you had a decompression.
Potsie Weber is offline  
Reply
Old 15th September 2011 | 10:21
  #20 (permalink)  
15 Anniversary
 
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 911
Likes: 9
From: FL510
How about this one: lose cabin pressure halfway, and have to descent to 10000 ft into heavy convective weather. I did. Wasn't fun.
safelife is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.