EROPS and trans-pacific / polar routes
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 ]