EROPS and trans-pacific / polar routes

[PsychoDad]

Read in a well-respected (if there ever was such a thing)newspaper about a couple of incidents involving EROPS flights on trans-polar routes.

One of them was a Delta Air Lines which diverted to Cold Bay, Alaska, following an enroute incident. Being a very isolated place, the 64 inhabitants of Cold Bay had quite a challenge accomodating the 200 pax and crew from the Delta flight, but managed through a marvellous display of collaborative effort.

The other involved a China Eastern MD11 (?) which got quite a shake enroute resulting in injured pax and a diversion to Shemya. The story goes that it took +10 hours to get the injured pax to the mainland hospital,and 3 sadly passed away. The story did not say whether their deaths were because of their injuries, or the the time it took to get them medical care.

I am reliably informed that Boeing and some 777 operators has been granted 207 min. ETOPS clearence allowing for trans-polar flights to the far east. Some diversion airfields along the route are remote siberian airfields with very little in the way of accomodation and rescue services. I am also informed that some of the diversion airfields are being subsidised by Boeing, not that it makes much of a difference really.

Now the question beckons, is this safe ? Landing a crippled +300 pax airliner in the middle of a siberian winter on a poorly equipped airfield does not sound like the best of plans to me. I really could care less whether the aircraft has 2, 3 or 4 engines. There are other scenarios than engine failure to cause an emergency diversion. I belive Airbus has called for new rules applying to all EROPS flights, but that could very well be a marketing plot to convince airlines to choose the A340 over the B777.

I am not a long range driver, the King Air is nor very well suited for that, but am interested to learn what you guys think of transpacific / polar EROPS under the current rules.

[ 09 September 2001: Message edited by: PsychoDad ]

[Wino]

Actually it was boeing that called for the standardization for long range routes, as the correctly realized that most diversions have nothing to do with engine failures, as you just pointed out in your posts. Boeing wants the standardization because basically the south american market would need better that 240 minute etops on their routes and that is why the 340 sells down there, while the 777 kicks its but everywhere else.

Incidentally, both cases were poor planning on the part of the crew, partially because of a lack of information available to the crew at the time. At AA our diversion guide specifically lists how far away medical help is from the airport. ON the North Atlantic for example departing the flight plan to your enroute alternate of Keflavek would make almost no sense in the case of a heart attack because the hospital is 45 minutes away once you get the aircraft on the ground, where if you fly another 30 minutes and go to Shannon, the Hospital is much closer. (I know this doesn't apply for all tracks and all locations but you get the drift)

Also, once an emergency happens (lets say engine failure) the captain has extremely broad discressionary powers under his emergency authority to go any place he pleases with the aircraft. I myself am NOT going to shoot an engine out ILS to a windswept ICY 6500 foot runway when 30 minutes in another direction might take me to a severe clear warm and sunny beach with a 12000 foot runway. (Assuming of course I got the gas for it).

One thing to remember. I actually believe ETOPS aircraft are more safe than 3 and 4 engine aircraft as long as the crew excersized good judgement. Only ETOPS aircraft are required to have cargo fire fighting for the entire ETOPS portion of the trip. the 3 and 4 engine aircraft have no such requirement, and a cargo fire has lead to the loss of many large jets over the ocean while an engine failure has never lead to the loss of an etops jet over the ocean (or any that I know of since the jet age).

Cheers
Wino

[innuendo]

Airbus produced an article in one of their magazines some time ago criticizing some of the ETOPS terminals used for diversion when Boeing were looking to extend past 180 mins. The North Pacific ones in particular. The handling of the passenger load in extreme winter conditions was a factor that they emphasised if the aircraft was unable to be used and kept warm enough at the remote small stations. Obviously four engines better than two from their piont of view.
I presume that on the Europe to Western North America Kef, Sondrestrom,Iqualiut,Churchill etc can feed and water a full A-330 load.