August 2016 Gear Up final

Issue 3 Jul - Aug 2016

…GEAR UP!
A Training Committee Publication

In This Issue: Editor's Foreword

Page 2: Hey! Your Bag 2016 is more than halfway complete. Time flies, especially as you
is on Fire! get older. The ALPA Training e-zine, Gear Up, is developing into
Page 5: Threat in the a first-class publication because of you, the reader, and you, the
Flight Plan Release: Are contributor. This e-zine is a quarterly publication with the goal of
you Safe and Legal? being a supplement to the training provided by Federal Express.
Page 7: Threats via At no point is the intent to challenge, change, or in any other
Paperwork: An MEL manner countermand what Federal Express intends as we do our
Preamble Commentary jobs in flying one of the world’s greatest fleet of aircraft. Our job is
Page 8: Have an Article to fly them the way FedEx wants them to be flown within the
for Gear Up? boundaries of safe, legal and professional.

Previous Issues As an instructor and line pilot at FedEx, I can personally say that I
of Gear Up!: am a better pilot because of the unique position that an instructor
often holds—that is the position of being exposed to a plethora of
Issue 1 - Jan-Mar 2016 very intelligent and skilled individuals with a multitude of
Issue 2 - Apr-Jun 2016 experiences. I am able to assimilate this information and use it to
make myself a better pilot. As a matter of fact, most of my good
IFALPA SAFETY habits, skill, techniques, and knowledge I have “stolen” from
BULLETINS: someone else. I am usually the dumbest guy in the room
surrounded by really smart individuals. With that mindset, the
Engine-Out Taxi basic objective of “Gear Up” is to “boomerang” this info back into
Runway Status Lights the crew force—better ways to do something, better ways to
(RWSL) understand something, and better techniques. We will also try to
cover the latest and greatest things happenings on the line,
clarifying misconceptions and errors that we, as line pilots, are
doing.

Our goal is to have 100 percent participation—every single
individual associated with operating our aircraft should read,
utilize, and understand this publication. We realize that may not
happen, but we do ask that you, the reader, share these
concepts, ideas, and techniques with other pilots so that we
mentor ourselves into a better crew force.

BOOMERANG

For comments, questions, or contributions, please e-mail Glen
Washington at [email protected] or Matt Morley at
[email protected].

...Gear Up! 1

Issue 3 Jul - Aug 2016
...Gear Up!
Hey! Your Bag is on Fire!

Fighting Fires Caused by Lithium Type
Batteries in PEDs

Personal electronic devices (PEDs) have become commonplace and
are an integral part of our personal and professional lives. It is very
likely that every time we step into our workplace—the flight deck—
there are multiple PEDs powered by lithium batteries. So the
question is, how would you react when a cell phone, laptop, or tablet
bursts into flames on the flight deck?

In 2009, the FAA published a Safety Alert for Operator (SAFO)
09013 with the subject: “Fighting Fires Caused by Lithium Type
Batteries in Portable Electronic Devices.” In the background section
of the SAFO, the FAA first describes how the situation may develop:
“The two types of batteries commonly used to power consumer
PEDs brought on aircraft are lithium batteries [disposable] and
lithium-ion batteries [rechargeable]. Both these types are capable of
ignition and subsequent explosion due to overheating. Overheating
results in thermal runaway, which can cause the release of either
molten burning lithium or a flammable electrolyte. Once one cell in a
battery pack goes into thermal runaway, it produces enough heat to
cause adjacent cells to go into thermal runaway. The resulting fire
can flare repeatedly as each cell ruptures and releases its contents.”

SAFO 09013 contains a link to additional information on this subject
describing lithium battery fires in further detail. It says, “Although
lithium is a metal, do not treat a fire involving a small number of
lithium batteries as a Class D fire. [A Class D Fire, as defined in AC
120-80A, are fires involving combustible metals such as magnesium,
titanium, zirconium, sodium, lithium, and potassium, which require
extinguishing agents of the dry powder types] Halon, Halon
replacement and/or water fire extinguishers can be used to control
fires involving a small number of lithium batteries, such as found in
common portable electronic devices [PED] or a laptop computer.
Lithium batteries are capable of ignition and subsequent explosion
due to overheating. Overheating may be caused by shorting, rapid
discharge or overcharging. Overheating results in thermal runaway,
which is a chemical reaction within the battery causing the internal
temperature and pressure to rise. The result is the release of
flammable electrolyte from the battery and, in the case of disposable
lithium batteries, the release of molten burning lithium. Once one
battery cell goes into thermal runaway, it produces enough heat to
cause adjacent battery cells to also go into thermal runaway.

2

Issue 3 Jul - Aug 2016

This produces a fire that repeatedly flares up as each battery cell in turn ruptures and releases its contents.
Fighting a fire that contains either disposable or rechargeable lithium battery cells requires extinguishment of
the fire and cooling of the remaining cells to stop the thermal runaway. Water is the most effective coolant.
Halon, Halon replacement and/or water fire extinguishers should be used for initial knockdown of these fires,
followed by immediate dousing with water from any available source.”

In SAFO 09013, the FAA recommends a two-step procedure to fight the fire of a lithium-type battery-
powered PED: (1) extinguishing the fire, and (2) cooling the remaining cells to stop thermal runaway.

(1) Utilize a Halon, Halon replacement or water extinguisher to extinguish the fire and prevent its
spread to additional flammable materials.

(2) After extinguishing the fire, douse the device with water or other non-alcoholic liquids to cool the
device and prevent additional battery cells from reaching thermal runaway.

Two Warnings are included with the recommended procedure:

WARNING: Do not attempt to pick up and move a smoking or burning device! Bodily injury may
result.
WARNING: Do not cover the device or use ice to cool the device. Ice or other materials insulate the
device, increasing the likelihood that additional battery cells will reach thermal runaway.

At the end of the additional information document, the process of fighting a fire involving lithium batteries is
reiterated and expanded upon:

•The technique for fighting a fire involving lithium batteries is the same, regardless if the battery is a
disposable or rechargeable lithium battery or battery pack.

•Relocate passengers away from the device.
•Utilize a Halon, Halon replacement, or water fire extinguisher to prevent the spread of the fire to
adjacent battery cells and materials.
•Pour water, or other non-alcoholic liquid, from any available source over the cells immediately after
knockdown or extinguishment of the fire. Only water or other non-alcoholic liquid can provide sufficient
cooling to prevent re-ignition and/or propagation of the fire to adjacent batteries. Water, though it may react
with the tiny amount of lithium metal found in a disposable battery, is most effective at cooling remaining
cells, stopping thermal runaway and preventing additional flare-ups. Significant cooling is needed to prevent
the spread of fire to additional cells in a battery pack.

Any angst about using a halon fire extinguisher on the flight deck? Me too. Advisory Circular AC 120-80A,
In-Flight Fires, speaks to this very concern (12. Halon Exposure. Pg. 11). “Generally speaking, halon is not
harmful to passengers and crew; however, various publications, including AC 20-42, caution against
exposure to “high levels” of halon in confined spaces, citing the possibility of dizziness, impaired
coordination, and reduced mental sharpness. AC 20-42 also provides guidelines that describe what is
meant by the term “high level” and further states that these levels should not be exceeded in ventilated or
non ventilated passenger compartments on aircraft. However, studies have shown that discharging all of the
hand-held halon extinguishers required by regulation in the passenger cabin of an air carrier aircraft will not
exceed the maximum concentration levels of halon vapor specified in AC 20-42 or by NFPA 408 guidelines.”

The Advisory Circular goes on to say “NTSB investigations of in-flight fires indicate that crewmembers have
been hesitant to use halon extinguishers during flight because of mistaken ideas about adverse effects of
halon.

...Gear Up! 3

Issue 3 Jul - Aug 2016

In one instance, an F/A went to the flight deck to inform the flightcrew of a fire and asked the captain whether
to spray halon into a vent where she suspected a fire. The captain instructed her not to use the halon
extinguisher, indicating he was concerned about spraying halon in the cabin. In another instance, an off-duty
company pilot considered using a halon fire extinguisher, but decided against doing so because he was
concerned that the halon ‘would take away more oxygen.’ In each instance, the crewmembers lost critical
time and delayed the aggressive pursuit of the fire.”

Finally, the NTSB ends with a recommendation. “The NTSB has expressed concern that crewmember
training programs have overemphasized the risks of exceeding the maximum recommended levels of halon
gas outlined in AC 20-42, especially when compared to the risks of an in-flight fire. The NTSB emphasizes
‘ . . . that the potential harmful effects on passengers and crew [of Halon] are negligible compared to the
safety benefits achieved by fighting in-flight fires aggressively.’ The toxic effects of a typical aircraft seat fire,
for example, far outweigh the potential toxic effects of discharging a halon fire extinguisher.”

You are in the cockpit and over the Atlantic. Suddenly, you notice that your bag is smoldering (it is
where you place your secured mobile phone as well as your personal tablet). What are you going to do? Are
you going to remove it from the cockpit – is it a distraction and interferes with Safety of Flight? Are you going
to use the Halon fire extinguisher on it? Are you concerned about Halon on the flight deck versus Halon in
the courier area? If you move it, where are you going to move it? Things to consider now and not later.

References
FAA. (2009) SAFO 09013. Fighting Fires Caused By Lithium Type Batteries in Portable Electronic Devices.
Washington, D.C.: Federal Aviation Administration Retrieved from
www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_operators/airline_safety/safo/all_safos/media/2009/
safo09013.pdf
FAA. (2014). Advisory Circular 120-82A. In-Flight Fires. Washington, D.C.: Federal Aviation Administration
Retrieved from
www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_120-80A.pdf

As we prepared to publish, this incident was just reported by Curt Lewis & Associates, LLC Flight Safety

Information newsletter (23 Aug 2016):
Date: 22 August 2016. A rechargeable battery of a smartphone in a carry-on baggage located under the seat
of a male passenger of flight Skymark SKY/BC732 from New Chitose to Tokyo/Haneda, operated by a
Boeing 737-86N, ignited and smoked just after take off at 00:19 JST. The fire was immediately extinguished
by the cabin crew, however, two crew members suffered minor chemical burn on their right arm or left hand
fingers. No injuries were reported among 170 passengers. The flight crew decided to turn back to New
Chitose, and the airplane made a safe emergency landing at 00:45 JST.

It's not a matter of if, it is a matter of when. So I ask you again, what is your plan if you encounter a PED

smoking or on fire in your cockpit?

BACK TO TOP

...Gear Up! 4

Issue 3 Jul - Aug 2016

Threat in the Flight Plan Release: Are You Safe and
Legal?

Our initial crew briefing should set the tone, identify possible threats and most importantly, identify
expectations on how to deal with those threats. We cover some threats better than others because it is part
of our training and experience. So what are the threats contained within the Flight Plan Release? There are
many, but this article is going to deal with just a few basic, yet often overlooked, threats that are right in front
of us.
Release for flight is defined under Section 3.49 of the FOM. It states: “The release is the basic authorization
for a flight to operate.” Further reading states that “by signing the release, both the captain and the
dispatcher agree that the flight can be operated safely under the conditions of the release. A flight may not
be operated contrary to the conditions of the release except by exercise of the Captain’s Emergency
Authority.” Due to this explicitly stated requirement, we as pilots have obviously made it our priority to
ensure we have an intricate working knowledge of the Flight Plan Release. Right?
Or, as Louis C.K. says, “Maybe, just maybe . . .” we should explore this a little further.
Looking at the release from Appendix C of the FOM, we are going to focus on five critical areas:
1. FOD
2. DEST
3. RQR
4. CONT

5. ALTN / MAF

...Gear Up! 5

Issue 3 Jul - Aug 2016

FOD: Fuel over Destination
“A sum of all usable fuel minus the burn ….” Basically, what burnable fuel is left when we arrive. Not going to
bore you with a review of this at this time. We are well aware of this threat. It is the mother of all fuel numbers
on the release because it is our safety number. We use it to adjust the total fuel for the flight. You do need to
realize it is affected by DEST (destination fuel), CONT (contingency fuel), and ALTN/MAF (alternate/missed
approach fuel), as well as other FP/R items (not discussed at this time); each being its own threat.

DEST: Destination Fuel
“Time and fuel burn to destination, which includes MEL/CDL penalty fuel, when applicable.” Not a lot of control
over this one, unless, you change the route of flight and/or flight planned level. So, did you know that GOC
uses software that normally considers winds enroute to create a preferential route of flight? If the route of flight
is planned around a large area of weather, that route is utilized in the DEST fuel calculation. Where is the
threat? It is basically that offer by ATC to go direct. At that point, upon acceptance, you have exited the
preferential route of flight. Recently, a transcontinental passenger carrier traveling from the east coast to the
west coast accepted a direct clearance from ATC without verifying FMS calculation of FOD and more
importantly, without notifying dispatch. They arrived at their destination with 1500# in a 757-sized aircraft! Don’t
do it without checking with GOC first.

RQR: Required Fuel
“The sum of all required fuel items . . . that must be on board in order to depart to the final scheduled
destination.” A fuel load less than RQR does not meet FAA/FEDEX-specified minimum for brake release. How
often do you check this prior to taking the runway (and anticipating brake release). Is this a threat? “Maybe,
just maybe . . .” Keep reading below.

CONT: Contingency Fuel
Fuel “added for known or anticipated delays in landing the aircraft to comply with FAR 121.647.” Huh?
Normally, most pilots do not truly have this in our scan because we don’t adjust it; we adjust FOD by adjusting
total fuel. However, it is part of the planning process utilized by GOC to ensure we are compliment with FAR
121.647. They estimate some delay time based on known or anticipated situations that may occur enroute—
basically “it plusses up the RQR to provide some predetermined amount of FOD over the EMER fuel.” So we
don’t care. It is a GOC number. But is it a threat? Yes it is! Notice that CONT fuel is included on the addition
side of RQR fuel. The higher the CONT fuel, the higher the RQR fuel. So for the sake of discussion, let’s use
the provided FP/R example where CONT = 11.2 and RQR = 109.1 with EXTRA = 3.2. You are happy with the
FOD = 31.9. As a matter of fact, you would have been happy with a FOD = 25.0. Plenty of “extra” as you define
it, to the tune of 6.9 (and not 3.2). Unfortunately, after block out, you experience a maintenance issue that has
you sitting for 45 minutes. You burn 4.0 during the PDM, but now you are ready. Being a great crew with high
SA, you review your FOD and see you are getting there with 27.9. You are happy because you are satisfied
with the FOD. However (assuming taxi fuel is accurate), when you push up the throttles and release the
brakes, your fuel on board is 108.3, meaning you are illegal. You have been bitten by the FPR with a high
CONT and relatively low extra fuel. If you add fuel, where is this fuel added in the amended release? Is it
added to CONT or is it added to EXTRA? The answer to that question can directly affect your legality.

ALTN/MAF: Alternate or Missed Approach Fuel
“Time/fuel for MA and CLB fuel from destination to cruise altitude and CRZ and APP fuel to the ALTN . . . If
alternate not required, ALTN is replaced with MAF. CRZ calculation uses MRC (maximum range cruise)
speed.” There it is in black and white. Fuel to get to your alternate (new destination) at some planned cruise
altitude. Where do you find that? You have to go to the last page of the FP/R and look at what altitude was
utilized in the planning software. I have seen FL290 utilized to go 183 nm. Is that realistic? In that case, if you
don’t go to FL290, then your ALTN fuel number planned on the FP/R is not accurate; therefore, your calculated
Bingo Fuel to the ALTN is also no longer accurate. Another threat hiding in the details. Also, what is your
MRC? Do you know how to get it because it is not on the FP/R?

...Gear Up! 6

Issue 3 Jul - Aug 2016

In general, if you can’t find a FMS page that provides that info, then under the definition of Cost Index (CI), the
crew would need to re-input CI = 0 as the flight initiates a turn towards the ALTN. A second threat sitting in the
details. The last threat with the ALTN fuel… it assumes you are going direct from the center of one airport to
center of the ALTN airport. How realistic is this? Will there be some route of flight required to fly and arrival
and then approach that isn’t direct? You betcha – unless you declare an emergency, and even then, you will
have to fly some type of approach.

There are many more iterations and considerations for this discussion. We, as FedEx line pilots have the
responsibility as assigned in the FOM to ensure we operate safely under the conditions of the release. We can
only do this by beginning to develop a thorough understanding the FP/R and briefing it in a manner that
identifies all threats.

BACK TO TOP

Threats via Paperwork: An MEL Preamble Commentary

Supplementing a recent company communication on the MEL preamble and protocol compliance, I thought
I’d share my review as well as a few techniques to navigate the legal compliance requirements I have
adopted from other captains. MEL compliance (and the PDM process) is one of the single greatest risks to
our legal operations. “If you call them (maintenance), write them” is the best guidance to keep you legal. The
Aircraft Maintenance Log (AML) is a legal document; therefore, getting it right the first time is important.
Technique: before writing a discrepancy into the AML, consider making the write-up on notepaper first for
editorial review before copying it into the AML. Reference the FOM for the most current guidance.

The Captain is responsible for reviewing, with the aircraft Dispatcher, the aircraft status prior to
accepting the Release. The Captain may require equipment over and above that permitted to be inoperative
in the MEL, when, in his judgment, it is needed for the conditions under which the flight will be conducted.
The final decision to accept or refuse the aircraft for a flight with inoperative equipment or systems rests with
the Captain. Aircraft malfunctions after “block-out” may require a return to blocks; or may require an
amended or new Release prior to continued operation as outlined in the FOM (Flight Operations Manual).

When an item of equipment is discovered to be inoperative, it is reported by making an entry in the
Aircraft Maintenance Record/Logbook as prescribed by 14 CFR. The item is then either repaired or may be
deferred per the MEL or other approved means acceptable to the Administrator prior to further operation.

There is no limitation to the amount of MELs an airplane can carry. Flag/domestic allows lower fuel loads,
and as such requires a better airplane. Be sure to check your fuel load against the FP/R “Required Fuel”
following the PDM process. Here is your governing guidance:

The Captain determines that the flight can be conducted under the conditions anticipated, safely and
without a significant increase in pilot workload.

MEL conditions and limitations do not relieve the operator from determining that the aircraft is in
condition for safe operation with items of equipment inoperative.

Operators are responsible for exercising the necessary operational control to ensure that an
acceptable level of safety is maintained. When operating with multiple inoperative items, the
interrelationships between those items and the effect on aircraft operation and crew workload will be
considered.

The Captain may require equipment over and above that permitted to be inoperative in the MEL,
when, in his judgment, it is needed for the conditions under which the flight will be conducted.

To reiterate, any discrepancy discovered prior to block out, call maintenance and record the discrepancy in 7
the AML.

...Gear Up!

Issue 3 Jul - Aug 2016

The greatest takeaway for malfunctions after block out is to communicate it properly and adhere to the
airworthiness requirements. Use of the PDM Flow Chart found under FOM Section 4.13 is a great Threat and
Error Management (TEM) tool. IMPORTANT NOTE: If the discrepancy is not “fixed” via ECL/QRH, then
referral to the MEL may be required AFTER FIRST CONTACTING GOC.

Upon referral to the MEL, if the inoperative equipment is listed as a “FLAG” item, then it requires Maintenance

to “sign off” the discrepancy, either via closing it after repair or deferral. Normally, the aircraft shall return to the

gate/ramp for required maintenance; however, if maintenance can complete the required maintenance
procedures and sign-off the AML while the aircraft is parked away from the gate/ramp, then the return
is not required.

If the inoperative equipment is not a “FLAG” item, the flight may continue utilizing the PDM process. USE THE
PDM FLOW CHART AND THE AML TEMPLATE. Completing the PDM will require the crew to complete both
(O) and (M) procedures; ensure GOC (and their coordination with MOC) are in the loop. You will need to get
GOC time and initials for the MEL item number that is being added to the release as well as MOC control
number (and possible employee number for procedure verification) for the PDIS that must be recorded before
termination of the flight (you may legally takeoff prior to recording the discrepancy—DON’T FORGET IT. Note
that we, as aircrew, when completing a PDM, do not have to place an orange sticker in the cockpit; however, it
may be a good technique under TEM—it will keep this in your scan for threats to remind you of the
discrepancy.

Final notes:
Direct communications with MOCC (versus GOC) have led to recent losses of operational control. Contact
GOC first. The PDM process in the FOM details captain-to-dispatcher communication requirements. Orange
Stickers—one more time. Should I put the orange sticker on or not? Isn’t that properly placarding? Placarding
by definition encompasses multiple actions in properly issuing an MEL. We as pilots have no requirement to
place an orange sticker on the inoperative component in the PDM process. We do have a responsibility to
ensure it is affixed with the appropriate control number when complying with known MELs.

The MEL/CDL instruction “PLACARD (M)” or “RECORD IN AML/EAML” requires three interrelated
maintenance actions:
1) An AML/EAML entry.
2) Printing of an Airworthiness Release Document (ARD), time permitting.
3) An Inoperative Control Sticker affixed on or near the appropriate cockpit control or display.

BACK TO TOP

Have An Article You Want to Include in Gear Up?

Article Submission Guidelines
First, thank you for your willingness to participate in the process. The entire goal of the Gear Up
publication is to share knowledge with the crew force in a highly usable and well-liked format.

Gear Up is intended to be a complimentary resource to company procedure and intent, never
attempting to change, challenge, or reset company policy or procedures. Anything submitted is
not intended to show any shortfall by the company. In order to create a useful and desired
resource for the crew force, there are certain guidelines that we request from you, the author.

1. The article should be as short as possible. The desired length is 1-2 pages (or less), although some
subjects are too complicated to successfully follow this restriction. However, as you write the article, keep in
mind that the average line pilot may not invest a prolonged length of time into a superdetailed, lengthy,
although very informative article. You basically have the first paragraph to grab their attention and make
them want to read your article.

...Gear Up! 8

Issue 3 Jul - Aug 2016

2. The article must be technically accurate. References to PHB / PHS / ASM / FOM / FARs, etc… are highly
encouraged. Before submission, it is desired that it be vetted by a subject matter expert (SME). If you need help
finding a SME, we will gladly provide you a contact. Or, you can submit it to us and we will submit it to a SME.
3. The article can utilize any type of method to teach: logic oriented, bulletized, funny, personal. Use your own style.
Your goal should be to teach others and ensure that learning (long term retention) is accomplished with the reader.
4. When submitting the article, please keep in mind that not only does it require technical accuracy, but it must also
be vetted by individuals in our local ALPA office, including attorneys. There will probably be some edits. Please
don’t take it personally. In today’s world, nothing survives initial contact. We appreciate your willingness to take the
edits on board. If you strongly feel that the edits change the message or intent, please bring it to our attention. We
are depending on you and our desire is to not be autocratic or overly authoritative.
5. Use of images, picture, etc… is highly encouraged.
6. Please understand that there can be no politics, digs, or other types of eye poking.
7. We have due dates assigned for each publication. We know that you are busy so if we call to
get an update, we are not trying to task or nag you. Just know that we are doing our best to stay on schedule for
publication.
8. You can submit your article early. Please don’t wait until the due date if you get it done earlier.

9. If our edition schedules and/or themes change (as they will), especially in regards to what articles will be included
in what edition, we may have to move your article to a different publication date. Thank you for understanding this.
10. You may direct that your submission include your name or you may select anonymous. That is your choice.
11. Our success depends upon you. Thank you for your willingness to step up.

BACK TO TOP

...Gear Up! 9