APU inop risks
 

with recent events around the world, and noticing the increase in inop APU's around the network, should there be a push back agaist company, and start rejecting aircraft's for having inop APU's flying around the country for week's on end?

i imagine capt sully's story will end very differently if his apu was on MEL.

A bit hard to push back as a captain if the MEL permits it - go figure, 240 ETDO doesn’t even require an APU

As I’m sure you’re aware, an MEL simply dictates what defects you may dispatch with, not what you must dispatch with. Furthermore any preamble to an MEL is very clear in what authority a Captain possesses regarding his or her right to request any defect be rectified. Remember, your company will not back you up if you accept a defect and a subsequent problem occurs which is exacerbated by said defect. Their position will be ‘they didn’t have to accept it’.

Pilots should always be pushing back against practices that reduce safety in the interest of profit.

We had a flight from Perth to Hobart, well into the bight.

Inop APU. No thanks. Swapped the aircraft. Was not taking an aircraft with an Inop APU down that way.

Nothing more enjoyable then rocking up to Melbourne on a 40 degree day with no APU, shutting down the engines after GPU plugged in and the Swissport bloke on the ground tells you “sorry there’s no qualified stair pushers so it’ll be a 10 minute wait before we can open the door”

I am aware of that - so will you dispatch a 787 or a 330 safely without APU on a Transpac or will you insist on an aircraft swap (with an extensive delay)?

An aircraft with a RAT is a different kettle of fish to an obsolete aircraft without one. That said: perhaps*

*I have been…difficult for 40 years as a captain and no one has ever argued with me, In that time I have been confronted with NO generators twice** and am reluctant to explore the attendant complications again. Your curiosity and acquiescence may eventually provide you with other insights.

**including once, for a time, on a 330

Ha ! APU inop, that's NOTHING compared to a day in the life of a Network pIlot. They are running around with Packs out, bleeds MEL'ed for days (no APU bleed airborne) high engine vibes, fuel leaks, FMC's inop, HYD problems, GPS no RAIM for over a year now, you name it. QF couldn't care less.

I’m not sure what company you work for but a half decent company has no choice but to back you up if you make a sensible professional decision regarding an MEL. Accepting an MEL is just one of the hundreds of discretionary decision you make in a month, that’s what you get paid a professional salary for.

Now of course, if you think your company is bending the rules, then we are playing a different ballgame all together…

See post #3…………………don’t take them.

It doesn’t really matter who I work for. Suffice to say it’s concerning that any Australian RPT jet operator is still entrenched in the good ol’ GA mantra of ‘it says you can go so you should’. This also goes beyond just APUs, how many deferred items are airborne as we speak, and how many of those are occurring simply because airlines prefer to prioritise profit over maintenance? The company I work for is known for not-so gently coercing the Captain into accepting a defect just because the MEL suggests you can.

And that is the beauty of holding BUs at arms length. If it all turns to custard one day, all the parent company has to do is get corporate comms on it and claim that ‘it’s a subsidiary who mismanaged to operation and we didn’t know’. et voila, in the minds of the public, the perfect safety record persists and business as usual.

endof the day your responsible for you're aircrafts not network or qantas. at the court hearings question one is why did you accept that bucket of bin chicken sh1t

Ahhh the old Accountants sniffing around the DDG at 2am. Ahh those were the days.

I see some of the items in the MEL as a way to get the aircraft home to a maintenance base, not a way to fly it for two weeks with a US item. Notwithstanding the ten or thirty day restrictions.

I believe that's with all Fokkers, not just the WA red rats

Well i hope that every pilot is researching every current MEL on every aircraft they enter the cockpit on.
It doesnt matter how long it takes, if it causes a delay that is not your problem.
The chief pilot or any other management stoog will not be sitting next to you at 30,000 feet when you need to make a decision because of an equipment failure due to their dont care cost cutting measures.

Spare a thought for the FOs who may feel that it’s not acceptable, but due to it being “the Captain’s ship” would find it tough to speak up and effectively over-rule, and don’t have that defence in stepping off..

First question I ask my FOs when dealing with a serious MEL - any reason you wouldn’t take it?

The question in the OP is actually quite interesting: what is the risk of flying around without an APU and how does that correlate with the latest spat of incidents.

Was the APU a factor in any of the recent incidents to such an extent that the whole MEL safety assessment should be reconsidered? Contrary to the OP I don’t think the APU was a deciding factor in any recent incidents. Even in Sully’s case.

So, do we need to ask the manufacturer, legislator, regulator, airlines and pilots to reconsider the APU rectification interval in the MEL? Is there an emerging case for this? I doubt it.