![Transcription Center logo](/themes/custom/tc_theme/assets/image/logo.png)
This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.
24 The daily menu for each crewmember was documented on the face of each day's food locker tray. This arrangement was excellent in that it allowed a crewmember to identify easily which tray to access if a substitution was desired. Supper meals for six people filled the food warmer to capacity. On flights of greater than six people with no galley, an extra food warmer will be mandatory. Additionally, consideration should be given to manifesting a backup food warmer on flights without a galley regardless of crew size to protect against a food warmer failure. Intermittently throughout the flight, a significant amount of gas would be found in the water. In some cases, gas would have to be "bled" from a food package and more water added to achieve the proper rehydration. It appeared that the gas/water ratio was highest during flight day 1, then again intermittent after flight day 4. The IFM to insert a gas separator in the water dispenser was not done. It is recommended that a more effective gas separator be added to the water dispensing system. The food tray netting does not completely cover the ends of the trays. This arrangement does not pose a problem with fully packed food trays, since the tight fit prevents any escape of food packages. After some food items are removed, however, there is a tendency for the remaining items to float out of the tray when the adjacent tray is removed. These food packages then interfere with the reinsertion of the removed tray. The food tray netting should be designed to prevent any food package escape. Waste Management 41-D was the first flight to carry the new WCS bag liner (slinger completely removed). A total of only 12 defecations were made. It appeared that the fecal material was pulled to the sides of the bag and did not tend to pile up from the bottom. It was never necessary to use the spatula to create more space. Paper was seen to be blowing around inside of the bag, but there was no tendency for any material to be ejected from the WCS. There was never any odor from the WCS, and the transport tube never had to be cleaned. These facts should be interpreted keeping in mind the very low number of usages. The sep fan motor sounded as if it labored when any urine was beng collected. It was the opinion of all the crewmembers that the urinal airflow was marginal to collect the urine and probably worse than on other flights as reported by crews. A significant improvement in performance could be achieved with higher flow rates and/or ∆P. Occasionally, significant amounts of urine would remain in the funnel and had to be wiped out. This degradation in performance was probably the result of debris being trapped in the disposable urinal filter. It appeared the urinal functioned best immediately after a filter change and slowly degraded over the day. When changed during pre-sleep, the filter always had some cabin debris. Apparently, even a small amount of debris has a significant effect on urine collection and a recommendation is made to carry more urine filters for more frequent changes. On occasion, urine would tend to collect under the personal funnel covers and some of the male crewmembers discontinued using the covers with no adverse