Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
11-02-2011, 06:25 PM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
I wrote the first paragraph and then came back and added the second. That thought flickered in my mind, and I dismissed it to respond to a PM. I also mean after push back. You are correct that after departure the QRH is the controlling document, and it will be interesting to see what their said, and how it varied from Boeing's. The decision to continue will revolve around how many etp's they had. It is very plausible that this time of year with a short flight and a good tailwind, they only had one.
11-02-2011, 06:29 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2008
Position: Knuckle-dragging line pilot
Posts: 943
Yeah, Air China actually had an engine problem on one of it's 747's so they just took a whole bunch of seat belt extensions and secured the fan blades. Then they took off full of pax from the Orient to Franfurt. The Germans grounded the aircraft and made then replace two engines before returning home. The first stage fan blades were just shredded.
snopes.com: Air China Jet Engine
11-02-2011, 06:30 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Urban chicken rancher.
Posts: 6,070
Hey Guys
Quick white slip question. Do you get paid for the credit or the actual time flown. Looks like I got paid for the time flown vs. the credit, which is significantly different.
Quick white slip question. Do you get paid for the credit or the actual time flown. Looks like I got paid for the time flown vs. the credit, which is significantly different.
11-02-2011, 06:32 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Urban chicken rancher.
Posts: 6,070
11-02-2011, 06:40 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: FO
Posts: 3,044
We and the Europeans, like many controlling agencies grant reciprocity for those licensed in another country to operate a flagged vessel from that country in to our/their land.
Depending on how the QRH et al is written, and how it varies from the Boeing manuals will be very important in the LOT case. On a ETOPS jets like the 767-300ER, crossing an ocean and exercising anything over 60 min etops with a center hyd failure, which most definitely effect ETOPS as it is recognized by all of the licensing agencies, would result in the FAA and the JAA both asking questions of the LOT crew, and dispatch.
Generally speaking, the 767-300ER is a 180 min etops jets, as things become inoperative after departure, you revert to 120 or 60 min etops. If, LOT had one ETP and dispatched at 180 mins, they were most likely past their etp, and continued on. No problem there. If they dispatched 180/120 with two etp's, their divert field should have been LPLA, or BIKF. This fact will be key. The findings will coming out in the investigation, but how they were dispatched, will play a significant role in Monday Morning quarterbacking this.
Depending on how the QRH et al is written, and how it varies from the Boeing manuals will be very important in the LOT case. On a ETOPS jets like the 767-300ER, crossing an ocean and exercising anything over 60 min etops with a center hyd failure, which most definitely effect ETOPS as it is recognized by all of the licensing agencies, would result in the FAA and the JAA both asking questions of the LOT crew, and dispatch.
Generally speaking, the 767-300ER is a 180 min etops jets, as things become inoperative after departure, you revert to 120 or 60 min etops. If, LOT had one ETP and dispatched at 180 mins, they were most likely past their etp, and continued on. No problem there. If they dispatched 180/120 with two etp's, their divert field should have been LPLA, or BIKF. This fact will be key. The findings will coming out in the investigation, but how they were dispatched, will play a significant role in Monday Morning quarterbacking this.
I like this thread, nice to learn some things well out of the realm of what I'm currently doing (and hope to do).
11-02-2011, 06:41 PM
veut gagner ŕ la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
“Reports have the cause as a center hydraulic system failure. If that was the only failure, then the landing gear should have been extended using the Alternate Gear Extension System. The 767 center hydraulic system has two independent AC electrical pumps, an air driven demand pump (ADP), and an emergency Ram Air Turbine (RAT) to power the center system components. The system also incorporates a standpipe in the hydraulic fluid reservoir at 17% to prevent a complete loss of fluid in the event of a component leak. Inoperative items with a complete loss of the center hydraulic system include center auto pilot (A/P), right A/P stab trim, some spoilers, ˝ stab trim, NORMAL flap and gear operation, and auto speedbrake system. Alternate gear extension is fully functional unless this hydraulic failure is accompanied with or caused by a total electrical failure. With a total electrical failure including the depletion of all battery power, a specific hydraulic shuttle valve that is held open electrically will then close and not allow the gear or flaps to be lowered normally or even by using alternate extension methods. A total electrical failure is extremely remote, especially for the 767ER which has an additional hydraulically driven generator (HDG) electrical power source. An electrical failure is not mentioned as a cause, and certainly does not appear to be the case here because the flaps were down. Any single jammed gear or gear door would not prevent the other two from extending. If this less than desirable landing scenario was caused by the failure of the center hydraulic system, then I believe there must have been an electrical failure in the hydraulic shuttle valve as well. In other words, a dual system failure. As unlikely as that may be, it is possible I suppose. Any other 767 drivers have any ideas? Am I missing something? BTW: The 757 hydraulic systems were designed differently to avoid this scenario altogether.”
11-02-2011, 06:41 PM
Runs with scissors
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: Going to hell in a bucket, but enjoying the ride .
Posts: 7,730
One of the reasons it "Takes So Long" to get our bids run and done, is they are actually run, re-run and run some more, using different thresholds, (min line values) until they get the stacks down to what is agreed upon with DALPA, re. reserves available, etc.
If we just let the company run each category once, and post it, they would all be done in 1-2 days...but anyone in the bottom half of their category wouldn't like the results! There would be a whole lot of unstacking, shuffling, etc. and nearly -zero- open time left over, that's what the Company would like.
And then they would want to reduce the reserve manning in every category, since there would be very little open time left after the initial run. That's why we only agreed to PBS -IF- a DALPA team was allowed to check the runs, and make changes to the runs, and re-run them.
I was on the original PBS Quality Control Committee when we first got PBS about...6 (?) years ago. Our "Job" was to check each run the company sent over to us (via email) check the stack heights, reserves available, unstacked percentages, etc. If we didn't like the run, we would ask the company to run it again, using different parameters. It is tedious and mind numbing work, it took 5 long days and about 200 emailed runs, from 8am to 11pm, that's why I finally got out.
But the guys who do it (Quality Control) every month are very good at it, and they will gladly help you with your bids, come Xmas time, all you have to do is call and ask. John Bell and Adam Zaret were there at the beginning and still doing it, they are two of the best if you can get ahold of them, but there are other very good guys too.
Even though I think I know how to bid, I still call them when I need something weird, and/or there's a holiday involved, or both in the same month, and have one of them look it over before I hit Submit.
11-02-2011, 06:41 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2010
Position: SLC 767ER Captain
Posts: 602
according to snopes.com, the Air China incident you mention was actually the damaged engine from the DHL A-300 that took a missile hit over Baghdad.
snopes.com: Air China Jet Engine
snopes.com: Air China Jet Engine
11-02-2011, 06:44 PM
Runs with scissors
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: Going to hell in a bucket, but enjoying the ride .
Posts: 7,730
I remember seeing a picture of a 747 (?) with the number 3 engine tied up using cargo straps so it wouldn't spin and vibrate so much. It was on the ground in FRA I believe, and it was about 10 (?) years ago? China flew it in but the Germans wouldn't let them fly it out, but the Chineese were going to!
11-02-2011, 06:46 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: 737A
Posts: 1,890
I'm sorry I don't currently have access to the various letters I referenced they are in my Air Force office. But, please be careful in assuming that 12301(d ) orders are exempt (I thought there was an additional paragraph from the letter you referenced that said something like if you orders are exempt they should say these orders are in support of so and so contingency. Then it goes onto say that if you believe this statement was mistakenly left off contact so and so for review and possible amendment ). I agree with you in that how can you not directly or indirectly support the war if your on orders... but rest assured it does not work that way. Please contact Air Force Reserve USERRA affairs for clarification. Having dealt directly with this vary issue in the last 4 months, I feel pretty confident in my views. However, if your orders do say you are in direct or indirect support you are good to go. But, just 12301(d) will not do it. I have know desire to argue the point, I would just recommend anybody contact USERRA affairs, have a copy of your orders they will ask you to fax them for review and tell you if you are exempt. Make sure you clarify before you have been gone 5 consecutive years from Delta.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
