DFW go around

[Dummy Pilot]

LINK: American Airlines pressurization problem

You have to sit through a 15 second advert befor the video, but it's worth watching the full 5 minutes.

The issue as I see it, is not that they developed a pressurization problem. My guess is that they somehow screwed up the Bleed switches or the Packs. However, as I wrote recently in a JetPedos thread, mistakes happen and I'm not surprised by that. I'm also pleased to see that it was handled under the ASAP program and all their fellow pilots will learn from those mistakes (if anyone wants to learn about the ASAP program, I'll be glad to expand on it).

What bothers me about this, is the two consecutive Go Arounds. That's a complete CRM failure in that they didn't take advantage of a non 'time critical' Threat by "creating time" thugh holding or asking for vectors. Something clearly went wrong on that flight deck and while I don't think they 'endangered' the aircracft, they did unnecessarily test themselves and ATC with the multiple Go Arounds.

[J]

Thanks for posting that. i've forwarded the link to a number of safety colleagues.

[flyboy2548m]

Thanks for posting that. i've forwarded the link to a number of safety colleagues.

Oh, good. Now that your "safety colleagues" are involved I'm sure we done been saved.

[J]

Thanks for posting that. i've forwarded the link to a number of safety colleagues.

Oh, good. Now that your "safety colleagues" are involved I'm sure we done been saved.

Now now, settle down. As you surely know, different modes can learn from each other . . .

http://www.closecallsrail.org/

[flyboy2548m]

Now now, settle down. As you surely know, different modes can learn from each other . . .

Sorry, I just had a flashback to all the super-secret photos that Carlos et al used to send to Al Weaver that the latter might determine the cause of death therefrom. Carry on.

[3WE]

VNav/Parlour Talker Extrodinare:

Excellent post, and fodder to entertain us amatures.

If you play devil's advocate, is there some "sinister insidious human factor" stuff that could explain how this could happen, or do you think there was some bad "controlling" from ATC, treating this as an emergency, hurry-up return to DFW?

We know that crews have been distracted before; trying to trouble shoot stuff, thus one botched "approach" doesn't seem like a huge surprise (even though it's wrong)- but it does seem bad if they blow it twice- which is why I wonder if airspace, ATC or something kept them too high, even after their first 360?

Also, would they somehow have been in less trouble if they could have gotten the plane to pressurize and then gone on their way- as opposed to landing?

[flyboy2548m]

VNav/Parlour Talker Extrodinare:

Excellent post, and fodder to entertain us amatures.

If you play devil's advocate, is there some "sinister insidious human factor" stuff that could explain how this could happen, or do you think there was some bad "controlling" from ATC, treating this as an emergency, hurry-up return to DFW?

We know that crews have been distracted before; trying to trouble shoot stuff, thus one botched "approach" doesn't seem like a huge surprise (even though it's wrong)- but it does seem bad if they blow it twice- which is why I wonder if airspace, ATC or something kept them too high, even after their first 360?

Also, would they somehow have been in less trouble if they could have gotten the plane to pressurize and then gone on their way- as opposed to landing?

I would like to know what really happened. A pressurization problem at terminal-area altitudes is not an emergency. So what if it's not pressurizing, stay low, ask for a box pattern, run the QRH, when you're ready go land the silly thing, write it up and proceed to Starbucks.

Something else happened here.

[3WE]

So what if it's not pressurizing, stay low, ask for a box pattern, run the QRH, when you're ready go land the silly thing, write it up and proceed to Starbucks.

Tell the company and FAA that you FORGOT something, make an expensive trip around the pattern, scare the passengers that they are risking a firery death (and don't get them where they are going), and then you go to Starbucks?

I would think you would want to at least act repentant.

Could an emphasis on covering their posteriors, and fixing a screw up been "the something that happened".

[flyboy2548m]

I would think you would want to at least act repentant.

Absolutely. Which is why I would order decaf, maybe even hot tea instead of my usual venti black with a shot of espresso.

[3WE]

I would think you would want to at least act repentant.

Absolutely. Which is why I would order decaf...

Decaf...that would be repentant!

[Gabriel]

To give credit to the pilots, they did the go-around (well, two of them) instead of trying to save an unstabilized approach (well, two of them).

[PurduePilot]

my usual venti black with a shot of espresso.

Pussy.

[3WE]

...an unstabilized approach (well, two of them).

ATC has at least some say in how high you are and where you are- it would be interesting to know if- given their "unusual go-around routings" that maybe they were kept a little high.