檢視並修訂「AIR DUAL BLEED FAULT」、「CAB PR EXCESS CAB ALT」與「EMER DESCENT」等相關差異性操作程序。

Review air bleed fault and emergency descent procedures and revise related inconsistent procedures accordingly.

11/0/20104 CPA (Cathay Pacific Airways)

CPA response
Regarding the issue of discrepancies between the Dual Bleed Fault and the Emergency Descent Procedures, these are both QRH paper checklists in the first instance, with ECAM (in the second instance) providing the same items in the CAB PR EXCESS CAB ALT checklist, in the event the cabin altitude exceeds 9550ft.
Regarding the paper checklists:
1)The CPA Dual Bleed Fault C/L is exactly as provided by Airbus, and we would not wish to change it               unless Airbus chooses to do so. We agree that the checklist is complex, but we would be exposing             ourselves from a legal/technical perspective if we tried to rewrite such a technically complex C/L. We         support the recommendation that Airbus be asked to revisit the design of this C/L, as expressed in the     TW-ASC final report recommendations.

2)Again, the CPA Emergency Descent paper C/L covers the same initial actions as the Airbus C/L. All we        have done is to divide the actions between PF and PM, as per the Airbus training guidance, and to add
   additional explanatory notes,plus one item. That one item is to select A7700, which was place there as        an aid to remind crews. In the case of CX521, it appears that the crew overlooked that action in the hear    of the moment. The selection of A770 does not appear on the ECAM C/L because the ECAM is                    programmed by Airbus. However the selection of A7700 does appear in the expanded notes on the  “CAB PR EXCESS CAB ALT” ECAM C/L in FCOM 3.

In summary, we are reluctant to change the EMERG DESCENT C/L’s these are deemed adequate and effective. We will not change the DUAL BELLD FAULT C/L until Airbus advises us of a change.

飛安會意見:接受。