37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Attributes | |
ACN | 1295774 |
Time | |
Date | 201509 |
Place | |
Locale Reference | ZZZ.ARTCC |
State Reference | US |
Aircraft 1 | |
Make Model Name | B767 Undifferentiated or Other Model |
Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
Flight Phase | Cruise |
Component | |
Aircraft Component | Cockpit Window |
Person 1 | |
Function | Pilot Flying First Officer |
Qualification | Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP) |
Events | |
Anomaly | Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe |
Narrative:
The captain was the pilot monitoring; I (the first officer) was the pilot flying; and the other first officer was on rest in the cabin. One flight mechanic was also on rest in the cabin; and the other flight mechanic was sitting in the observer's seat.I heard a loud bang in front of me; immediately noticed the windshield condition; and brought it to the attention of the captain and mechanic. I called for the window damage QRH while scanning the pressurization panel on the overhead; all pressurization indications were normal. The QRH procedure of windshield: cracked or shattered; pressurization normal; and no damage; bulging; or cracking on the inner pane. Result: no adverse condition; end of checklist.having finished the QRH; we briefly checked the dispatch deviations guide (ddg) and found that there was no relief for any type of cockpit window damage. Next we contacted dispatch via the satcom phone. The satcom connection dropped out three times while the captain was mid-conversation with the dispatcher. We decided to change from the handheld satcom phone to the satcom connection through the center control display unit (CDU) and our audio panels. After that the connection was better and we conveyed all of the required information to our dispatcher and the dispatch manager.after that the dispatchers attempted to contact maintenance control for a three way call but they were unsuccessful on their end. We concurred with dispatch that continuing the flight was a safe course of action; and asked that when they received maintenance control's concurrence that they ACARS us a message. Soon afterwards we received maintenance concurrence via ACARS and continued the flight normally. When the other first officer had finished his rest and returned to the cockpit we briefed him on the entire event.in my opinion; the captain did a superb job of communication with all affected individuals both onboard the aircraft and in the [operations center]; with proper priority; in the right order; and with care for the whole operation.additionally; the satcom communication issues and inability to establish a three-way call with maintenance control were real obstacles. Approaching extended range twin operations (ETOPS) airspace and trying to communicate an aircraft defect is a bad time to have trouble getting everyone on the same page.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: An air carrier Pilot reported a failed cockpit window in cruise and describe the challenges to communicate with the company operations center to confirm continuing to planned destination.
Narrative: The Captain was the pilot monitoring; I (the first officer) was the pilot flying; and the other first officer was on rest in the cabin. One flight mechanic was also on rest in the cabin; and the other flight mechanic was sitting in the observer's seat.I heard a loud bang in front of me; immediately noticed the windshield condition; and brought it to the attention of the Captain and mechanic. I called for the window damage QRH while scanning the pressurization panel on the overhead; all pressurization indications were normal. The QRH procedure of windshield: cracked or shattered; pressurization normal; and no damage; bulging; or cracking on the inner pane. Result: no adverse condition; end of checklist.Having finished the QRH; we briefly checked the Dispatch Deviations Guide (DDG) and found that there was no relief for any type of cockpit window damage. Next we contacted dispatch via the Satcom phone. The Satcom connection dropped out three times while the captain was mid-conversation with the dispatcher. We decided to change from the handheld Satcom phone to the Satcom connection through the center Control Display Unit (CDU) and our audio panels. After that the connection was better and we conveyed all of the required information to our dispatcher and the dispatch manager.After that the dispatchers attempted to contact maintenance control for a three way call but they were unsuccessful on their end. We concurred with dispatch that continuing the flight was a safe course of action; and asked that when they received maintenance control's concurrence that they ACARS us a message. Soon afterwards we received maintenance concurrence via ACARS and continued the flight normally. When the other first officer had finished his rest and returned to the cockpit we briefed him on the entire event.In my opinion; the captain did a superb job of communication with all affected individuals both onboard the aircraft and in the [Operations Center]; with proper priority; in the right order; and with care for the whole operation.Additionally; the SATCOM communication issues and inability to establish a three-way call with Maintenance Control were real obstacles. Approaching Extended Range Twin Operations (ETOPS) airspace and trying to communicate an aircraft defect is a bad time to have trouble getting everyone on the same page.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.