A MD80's Tail Compartment Temp High light illuminated after takeoff. The QRH procedure was completed; an emergency declared and the aircraft returned to land. The Captain found the QRH procedure poorly written and difficult to complete.
Synopsis
A MD80's Tail Compartment Temp High light illuminated after takeoff. The QRH procedure was completed; an emergency declared and the aircraft returned to land. The Captain found the QRH procedure poorly written and difficult to complete.
Narrative
Outside air temperature [was] 38 degrees C; cabin temperature [was] over 30 degrees C. Aborted ground start due to low air on APU. Right engine over temp on start. Maintenance used start cart to successfully start both engines at gate. Following normal taxi; takeoff; just after slat retract; Master Warning 'Tail Compartment Temp High' light. [We] complied with checklist and memory items. Captain declared emergency as per new checklist and we returned to gate. Note: Master Warning light went out immediately after memory items were completed. [We had an] uneventful landing on the runway. After Airport Rescue and Fire Fighting inspection; returned to gate. Comment that the single frequency approach was very cluttered with extraneous chatter between Airport Rescue and Fire Fighting and Tower. This could be a factor in a more serious emergency.Suggest Airport Rescue and Fire Fighting and Tower refine their communication procedures for single frequency approach. Second radio or cell phone seems the best solution. The new checklist does not allow the Captain to continue flight upon resolution of the flight.
Second reporter narrative
Light extinguished after 90 seconds. I was pilot not flying. Pilot flying was directed to return to airport and communicate intentions to ATC. After light extinguished; [I] tried to make sense out of new QRH procedure. I found it very confusing and poorly written/formatted. This confusion resulted [in] a delay in my part in declaring an emergency for our return. We requested Airport Rescue and Fire Fighting and communicated directly with them after uneventful landing. We requested an inspection of the tail area prior to taxi to gate. No indication of fire or overheat was indicated so we taxied to gate without further incident.This was my first chance to use the new QRH. I found the procedure very confusing; especially during a period of high stress. There should be more prominent display of the note after the memory items. The rest of the procedure seems more suited to an engineer/test pilot during flight test/certification. It is very poorly formatted for airline operations and too many of the steps seemed to be irrelevant or unnecessary. I believe the procedure needs to be rewritten with cleat direction and goals during each step. The new QRH procedure does not do this in my opinion.
Source: NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (public domain). Reports are voluntary submissions and are not verified by NASA.