how to handle a rapid decompression over the Pacific ?

[flycold]

is there any specific procedure for over pacific ocean?
many thanks!

[BOAC]

Same as any ETOPS route assuming you mean a twin?

[whenrealityhurts]

You have to breathe...so you either have the O2 system to stay up there at alt, providing for you and pax, or you come down to an alt where you the O2 system can provide for you and pax, or you come down to an alt where you can now breathe ambient air...What ever alt you end up at, to breathe and not be a pilot Popsicle, now you have to consider your new fuel burn, that if planned for, you can make to your destination.

Can your average airliner leaving LAX, once hitting the half way point, continue at alt providing O2 for everyone or do they have to come down and now have enough fuel at the lower ALT to make it to Hawaii.

It's a loaded question and I would really love someone to show me how 150 passengers could be provided 2.5 hours worth of O2 at 39000 feet.

[flycold]

Both ETOPS or non ETOPS flight. even 4 eng aircraft as well.
Generally "descend to 10,000ft or MSA whichever is higher and land at the suitable airport ASAP."
But I just wonder any specific procedure and considerations for when I fly over the pacific ocean.
Thanks again!

[westhawk]

Masks on, throttles idle, nose down with an offset turn, emergency descent checklist. Make the required radio calls. Level off at the altitude planned for this contingency at the appropriate lateral offset distance. Establish planned contingency airspeed and course appropriate for contingency destination. Notify ATC as required. Hope and constantly check that your contingency fuel planning was adequate.

Hopefully your pre-flight review of the contingency planning leaves you with some modicum of confidence in your new prospects!

[DBate]

Considering the fuel requirement for such an occasion: Additional Fuel (called critical fuel at our outfit for such a case) should be carried on such a flight:

Critical Fuel is the fuel required at the most critical point along the routes, if a loss of one or two engines or loss of pressurisation occurs, to


descent according to procedure and continue with LRC to a suitable AD and
hold there for 15 min at 1.500' AAL
and make an approach and landing

Critical fuel is of course only required, if the calculated minimum fuel is not sufficient for such an event.

Regards,
DBate

[MarkerInbound]

We had three fuel calculations on the paperwork OAK-HNL.

1. How much fuel we needed to fly the leg plus alternate and reserve - almost irrelevant except to plan a landing weight.

2. How much fuel we needed to get to the ETP, lose an engine, drift down and keep going in the middle 20 thousand levels.

3. How much fuel we needed to get to the ETP, decompress, dive to 10,000 and press on with all engines.

Number three was always the highest number. If we decompressed AND lost an engine I think we had a wet footprint in the middle.

[fire wall]

quote "I would really love someone to show me how 150 passengers could be provided 2.5 hours worth of O2 at 39000 feet. "

low level fuel burn and resultant range is but one question posed by a depress burn. Those of you thinking of staying high to reduce resultant fuel burn (forgetting the pesky pax down the back and their O2 requirements) are not considering the very real danger of nitrogen coming out of solution in the bloodstream / joints .

[barit1]

Is there any situation for a 3 or 4 engine a/c where at FL100, greater range can be had with an engine shut down? I propose this based on the fact engines are optimized for cruise @ FL300 and up, and thus run at very low disoptimized thrust at low altitude; SFC is thus higher.

Might be better to run fewer engines at higher thrust!

:8

[galaxy flyer]

Barit1

I'm sure there are, the P-3 patrol planes did it regularly. But, I doubt you could do it in public transport. The data is unlikely to be available to determine when an engine shutdown would be advatageous.

GF

[Mad (Flt) Scientist]

Nimrod also routinely shut down 2 of 4 for low level patrol IIRC. But redundancy calcs are predicated on keeping as many engines running as you can. No-one's going to encourage commercial pilots to shut down a healthy engine.

[aterpster]

Markerinbound:

Number three was always the highest number. If we decompressed AND lost an engine I think we had a wet footprint in the middle.

Not allowed for Part 121 ops.

[galaxy flyer]

It's a loaded question and I would really love someone to show me how 150 passengers could be provided 2.5 hours worth of O2 at 39000 feet.

Two words: Liquid Oxygen. The C-5 had 100 liters, as I remember, the system could supply everyone at FL 240 for almost 6 hours. So, no issues there. Since leaving everyone on masks for that long was a bit inhumane, we planned depressed at FL 100.

In my corporate operation, like 121 ops, we have to have a dry footprint at FL 100, depressed or dry footprint OEI at OEI optimum cruise level. Have to inquire about OEI and depressed. I suspect on most routes, it is possible.

My most challenging sector was Petropavlovsk to Taihiti, had to fly LRC to make dry prints between Christmas and Taihiti and then just barely when depressurization was planned for. Russian exit points really fouled that one up.

GF

[ReverseFlight]

Question: Why does the descent have to be at max speed ? Why risk a structural overspeed instead of a low-speed stall ? Surely the RoD is more important to get down to 10,000' asap ?

e.g. A320 QRH Emer Descent : "Descend at the max appropriate speed."
e.g. B737NG FCTM Rapid Descent : "Target speed MMO/VMO".

Explanation appreciated.

[ross_M]

If we decompressed AND lost an engine I think we had a wet footprint in the middle.

Is it possible you'd get a slightly better range because of one less engine. Just wondering...

[ReverseFlight]

ross, in case you were responding to my post, I was referring to a rapid decompression over the Pacific (the original subject of this thread) assuming both engines running, therefore OEI and terrain issues are irrelevant. Perhaps I didn't make myself clear.

[ross_M]

@ReverseFlight:

I was responding to MarkerInbound. My question was whether a ( decompression + lost engine ) be better than just a decompression from range considerations alone.

[bubbers44]

Regululations would not allow an airliner to cross the Pacific and not have a procedure to land at destination or return without everybody alive. We had a rogue chief pilot that wanted to fly from LAX to HNL with no supplemental oxygen even though we had the space. I refused and told the company why I wouldn't do it because ditching was the possible outcome. Common sense will prevail in these matters.

[Potsie Weber]

Is it possible you'd get a slightly better range because of one less engine. Just wondering...

Yes, for the 737 that is the case.

If you look at the long range cruise tables at 10,000'. Fuel Flow is about 10% more for the 2 engine case.

Our company works on decompression (2 engine) as the most fuel critical scenario for ETOPS planning. They don't use LRC as the speed schedule, but the result is the same - decompression (2eng) is more limiting.

Establish planned contingency airspeed

For us, planned speed is simply that - planned speed to establish the area of operation. There is no need to actually fly at that speed if you had a decompression.

[safelife]

How about this one: lose cabin pressure halfway, and have to descent to 10000 ft into heavy convective weather. I did. Wasn't fun.

[BOAC]

Might be better to run fewer engines at higher thrust - a fairly common military procedure on combat aircraft, but remember that generally mil engines are 'optimised' for full power (leaving the Jaguar out of it :D) and so fuel consumption tended to be better at top end RPM, whereas civ and other transport a/c are 'optimised' for cruise RPM bands. Standard low fuel diversion in the BAC Lightning was one shut down if it was for any significant distance and we used to 'loiter' on CAP one-engined..

Whoever it was suggested staying at cruise altitude unpressurised - don't so it with me on board please.Level off at the altitude planned for this contingency at the appropriate lateral offset distance. - where do you fly that has an offset procedure at 10,000' or below?

[Mad (Flt) Scientist]

Question: Why does the descent have to be at max speed ? Why risk a structural overspeed instead of a low-speed stall ? Surely the RoD is more important to get down to 10,000' asap ?

e.g. A320 QRH Emer Descent : "Descend at the max appropriate speed."
e.g. B737NG FCTM Rapid Descent : "Target speed MMO/VMO".

Explanation appreciated.

Highest ROD is achieved at max speed. You want to get down asap so use max speed unless a structural problem (i.e. structural damage) is known/suspected in which case most aircraft say to descend at current speed.

[barit1]

I'm fully aware of P-3's, Nimrods etc shutting some down when on patrol, but that's done for greater ENDURANCE, not RANGE. My question yesterday was whether range could be extended by this practice.

Potsie Weber surprised me with his 737 response - I guess I wasn't expecting a twin to behave that way (trim drag, y'know) but I now stand enlightened! :)

[barit1]

The genesis of my range question goes back 35 years: A F/E at KLM theorized the DC-10 was "hobbled" by the nose-down moment of the high #2 engine, causing excess stab trim drag. He proposed running #2 at reduced thrust in cruise to lessen trim drag.

He would have been correct, too, if it weren't for the unfortunate fact that engine SFC deteriorates with the reduced thrust, thus eating up any gains in trim drag. :sad:

[ross_M]

Is it possible you'd get a slightly better range because of one less engine. Just wondering...

Yes, for the 737 that is the case.

If you look at the long range cruise tables at 10,000'. Fuel Flow is about 10% more for the 2 engine case.

Thanks @Potsie Weber!

What's the analog for a quad? Say a 747. Get's interesting ; would the adverse trim drag on a single engine failure be compensated by an additional symmetric engine shutdown. Only an academic question; doubt anyone's doing that.

[rudderrudderrat]

Hi ross_M,
What's the analog for a quad? Say a 747. Get's interesting ; would the adverse trim drag on a single engine failure be compensated by an additional symmetric engine shutdown. Only an academic question; doubt anyone's doing that.
747-400 has flown LAX-LHR on 3 engines.
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/factor200623.pdf

[BOAC]

My question yesterday was whether range could be extended by this practice - see post #21? Endurance not toooo much of a problem on an emergency diversion:hmm:

[westhawk]

For us, planned speed is simply that - planned speed to establish the area of operation. There is no need to actually fly at that speed if you had a decompression. Of course not. In case I didn't state it clearly enough, the planned speed I was referring to is the speed at which the flight planned time and range assumptions at the ETP for the contingency being considered are based. The actual situation at the time of occurrence may give cause to select a different speed. But since the fuel burn estimates used in the flight plan contingencies were calculated using a specific speed, it's a good place to start until the actual situation can be assessed and the plan adjusted accordingly.

Summarizing oceanic planning considerations into a format suitable for the purposes of a discussion like this is challenging to say the least. A comprehensive computer based flight plan package contains far too much information to whittle down to a few paragraphs. And there are more things to consider than can be accounted for in a few words. The automation of flight planning provides fast accurate data, but also makes understanding the assumptions and decision matrix more challenging. It all seems a bit more sensible when marked up on a plotting chart.

westhawk

[westhawk]

where do you fly that has an offset procedure at 10,000' or below?

Ha ha! Nowhere of course. The offset is intended to provide lateral separation from other traffic on the same track while descending.

There's at least an even chance you'll be changing course for a diversionary alternate or return anyway. I did not mean to imply that one must continue on the offset track once the descent is completed. If a real emergency, going direct might be most appropriate.

[Willit Run]

BA didn't quite make it to LHR. had to stop a bit earlier if i remember correctly.

[wallypilot]

"Question: Why does the descent have to be at max speed ? Why risk a structural overspeed instead of a low-speed stall ? Surely the RoD is more important to get down to 10,000' asap ?

e.g. A320 QRH Emer Descent : "Descend at the max appropriate speed."
e.g. B737NG FCTM Rapid Descent : "Target speed MMO/VMO".

Explanation appreciated. "


For the safety of the humans on board. rapid decompression at high altitudes can cause DCS (also known as the bends). Have to get down asap to get that nitrogen back into solution in the blood. plus, it might be a bit chilly.

[HarryMann]

A F/E at KLM theorized the DC-10 was "hobbled" by the nose-down moment of the high #2 engine, causing excess stab trim drag. He proposed running #2 at reduced thrust in cruise to lessen trim drag.whereas the DH 121 Trident had its centre-engine momentum drag above the c/l, and the thrust about in-line.
Slight assistance with trim drag :ok:

====

An historic miljet (1945 Gloster Meteor) regulary positions to airshows with one engine shut down. These are RR Derwents, some the earliest production Whittle based engines, and are stopped and started with complete confidence it seems, even in such an old warbird. They are a trifle juicy, so this makes a healthy improvement to its realistic range, as well as reducing hours on each engine (they both still have plenty left, fortunately :ok:)

[HarryMann]

D. P Davies pointed out that there are at least two ways of getting down fast.

The Mmo/Vmo route, anticipating the switch altitude to pickup Vmo.

Then it was possible to decelerate at constant altitude, hang out a few drag producing devices (e.g. u/c and/or spoilers ) and then come down slower & steeper.

For a veriety of reasons, the former is usually the best method, especially as it starts to get the cabin altitude down immediately....

Both methods (he suggested) required a sensible margin above level-off height (e.g. 10,000 ft) to initiate the levelling off in good time.

*The ear also doesn't like (can't handle) rapidly increasing pressure as much as reducing pressure. I believe I was once told that comfortable rapid descents should be limited to about 8000 ft/min... for that reason, though of course oxygen content of the cabin air would rate higher on the wish list, than some discomfort.

* Am quite prepared to be corrected on the above anecdote

[ReverseFlight]

Thanks for all your answers. I guess the max RoD is achieved at max speed (MMO?VMO) rather than min speed (Vls), although I have no reference for this. My A320 FCTM just says :
When in idle thrust, high speed and speed brake extended, the rate of descent is approximately 7000 ft/min.

[whenrealityhurts]

33 posts later and the question of the day is how to push the nose over and not exceed Vmo in a rapid decompression event.

How about some of the experts in here tell me how a 737 past the half way point to Hawaii, will either provide 150 passengers with O2 at altitude for the remainder of the trip or have enough fuel to fly the last 1100 Nm at 12500 feet.....

[Mad (Flt) Scientist]

Thanks for all your answers. I guess the max RoD is achieved at max speed (MMO?VMO) rather than min speed (Vls), although I have no reference for this. My A320 FCTM just says :

The explanation is based on the balance of forces in the dive.

At constant speed, the drag of the aircraft is balanced by the thrust and the gravity component along the flight path. The gravity component increases as the dive steepens, so for the steepest dive angle you want the most drag and the least thrust. Drag being proportional to speed squared, the faster you go the steeper the dive angle can be.

Furthermore, what counts is not dive angle but rate of descent. The faster you go for a given dive angle, the higher the ROD will be.

Therefore, for a given aircraft configuration, the faster you go, the higher the ROD will be, and its probably something like a cube factor on the speed. So speed is a very powerful determinant of ROD.

The only slight caveat is the statement "for a given aircraft configuration". Obviously if you change the configuration to achieve more drag, you can achieve a steeped angle. BUT if you give up speed limits in order to achieve a steeper angle, you may well (and in many cases do) lose out on ROD.

Going up the back side of the drag curve doesn't work because you get a fair amount of drag, but even if you could get the same dive angle as at Vmo, your rate of descent, which depends on both speed AND dive angle, will be anaemic compared to the VMO case - perhaps only 1/3 the ROD.

[BOAC]

have enough fuel to fly the last 1100 Nm at 12500 feet. - heard of ETOPS?

[galaxy flyer]

You might break out of your FAR 91, small plane world and refer to FAR 121.333 and FAR 121.646. Airliners are REQUIRED to provide for a depressurization in passenger operations at the ETP. Wet footprints are NOT allowed.

I don't have a B737 FPCCM, but you can be assured that the plan has fuel for a diversion at the ETP, either onward to HI or return to CA. We do it in business jets, the airlines do it. Simple or you don't go.

GF

[aterpster]

g.f.

You might break out of your FAR 91, small plane world and refer to FAR 121.333 and FAR 121.646. Airliners are REQUIRED to provide for a depressurization in passenger operations at the ETP. Wet footprints are NOT allowed.

I don't have a B737 FPCCM, but you can be assured that the plan has fuel for a diversion at the ETP, either onward to HI or return to CA. We do it in business jets, the airlines do it. Simple or you don't go.

I flew 121 quite often LAX-HNL and return. But, my experience was limited to TWA's L1011-100.

Westbound, once out of LAX about 300 miles SFO was our diversionary alternate until passing the ETP, at which point it became Hilo. Otherwise the wet footprint would be a problem.

Don't know whether that holds true to the 777 or A330 with their awesome range, but it seems like a B737-800 would be more critical than the L1011-100.

BTW, I am in Kauai this week. Landing at Lihue (PHLI) on Friday there was an Alaska Airlines 737 (800?, NG?) parked at the terminal. I presume it came from PANC. Or,perhaps Seattle? Anywhere else seems a bit of a stretch.

[ImbracableCrunk]

BTW, I am in Kauai this week. Landing at Lihue (PHLI) on Friday there was an Alaska Airlines 737 (800?, NG?) parked at the terminal. I presume it came from PANC. Or,perhaps Seattle? Anywhere else seems a bit of a stretch.

I think AS does PLHI-KSEA and PHLI-KLAX right now. -800SFP. All the islands are a stretch in a 737, really.

[whenrealityhurts]

BOAC - Just answer the question. You either provide O2 or you drop down and fly lower the rest of the way...will a 737 do it or not. Simple question..no fencing, no debate, no arguments, no dancing..pull out your book...you either know or you don't.

40 posts later....

[galaxy flyer]

The B737 will, of course or it wouldn't be dispatched; simple as that. And, it will at FL 100.

GF

[ImbracableCrunk]

BOAC - Just answer the question. You either provide O2 or you drop down and fly lower the rest of the way...will a 737 do it or not. Simple question..no fencing, no debate, no arguments, no dancing..pull out your book...you either know or you don't.

40 posts later....

You pretty much described ETOPS fuel: Fly to the CP, have a decompression, drop to 10,000 and continue to the destination. No secrets.

[BOAC]

when reality hurts (it just has!) - the answer was in the SECOND post. If you UNDERSTAND ETOPS you will know we need more information in order to answer the question properly . If you don't you are simply wasting our time.:ugh:

[aterpster]

Imbracable Crunk:

You pretty much described ETOPS fuel: Fly to the CP, have a decompression, drop to 10,000 and continue to the destination. No secrets.

Wouldn't diverting to the ETOPS diversion airport be more appropriate?

[ImbracableCrunk]

Wouldn't diverting to the ETOPS diversion airport be more appropriate?
I wasn't digging for exact regs, just that, yes you can have a decompression, descend, and make it to an airport. I guess it's good I'm scheduled for an ETOPS refresher next week.

[galaxy flyer]

Since US west coast to PHNL is the conversation here, returning to departure or continuing to destination is pretty much the same thing.

Aterpster:, yes, KSBA to PHTO is the shortest and might be a better example but not a lot of difference

GF

[barit1]

One tech question: Is there such a thing as partial decompression? That is, You're unable to maintain normal cabin altitude at cruise, but say you descend to FL150 and find that cabin altitude holds steady at 8K. Would you continue in that condition? Or would you go on down to FL100?

[aterpster]

g.f.

Since US west coast to PHNL is the conversation here, returning to departure or continuing to destination is pretty much the same thing.

Aterpster:, yes, KSBA to PHTO is the shortest and might be a better example but not a lot of difference

KSFO to PHTO is 2,013 n.m.
KSBA to PHTO is 2,065 n.m.
:)

As I said previously I only flew KLAX-PHNL-KLAX.

Once KSFO became closer than KLAX we were to divert to KSFO prior to the ETP. After the ETP we were required to divert to PHTO until PHNL became closer than PHTO.

[davidjh]

Quote: Question: Why does the descent have to be at max speed ? Why risk a structural overspeed instead of a low-speed stall ? Surely the RoD is more important to get down to 10,000' asap ?

e.g. A320 QRH Emer Descent : "Descend at the max appropriate speed."
e.g. B737NG FCTM Rapid Descent : "Target speed MMO/VMO".

Explanation appreciated.

Hi Reverse Flight
I hope that someone else has not already answered this, if so, I hope that mine is on a par with theirs.
With reference to ETOPS/EROPS, twins will be certified to x amount of minutes e.g. 120, 180 min etc. This then equates to a radius circle of x amount of nm drawn around their suitable/adequate en-route alternate aerodromes. This distance, if published, is normally base on a descent at a certain speed, normally max or high speed, followed by en-route at a certain speed using, for example, MCT if OEI. In other words, in order to achieve that distance, within the certified time, we would need to fly at the published speeds. Other than the above, there are the other concerns which have already been mentioned e.g. depressurization and need to descend to oxygen system limiting altitude etc. Hope that I have put my thoughts down correctly and that it helps.

Davidjh

[ImbracableCrunk]

An emergency descent is at Vmo/Mmo, regardless of whether you are ETOPs or no.

OEI might be different matter. For OEI in ETOPS = go fast. OEI in mountains = driftdown.

[mustafagander]

No way!! Sometimes you need to descend slower.

An emergency descent is at the max "appropriate speed". If there's a big bang that might be relatively slow but it might also be Vmo. Judgement Captain!!

Were there to be structural problems, known or suspected, the descent speed would be slower than Vmo.

Your (small) ace is to turn to your diversion airport during the emergency descent when close to DPD.

It's called "airmanship".

[ImbracableCrunk]

Yeah, yeah. That's all in the QRH and POM and FCTM. That doesn't change a quarter of the way over the Pacific or a half way across Kansas.

[ReverseFlight]

Mad (Flt) Scientist, davidjh and mustafagander : you're all correct, and thanks for your guidance. Glad to learn something new everyday. :ok:

[mutt]

This distance, if published, is normally base on a descent at a certain speed, normally max or high speed, Are you sure about this? Look at an ETOPS manual, take the TAS @ 10,000 ft and multiply it by your approval time, i.e. B772 375 TAS x 2 hours = 750 nms..... but the area of operation is 840 nms, how come?

For OEI in ETOPS = go fast. Why?

Whenrealityisapain.... what would you do if you couldn't descend to a low enough altitude for normal breathing, would you increase the amount of oxygen on-board, and if so, how?

Mutt

[ImbracableCrunk]

For OEI in ETOPS = go fast. Why?

So you can the Maximum Diversion Distance according to my manual.

[BOAC]

Two points:

Descent speed is not relevant to ETOPS operations, nor is actual speed flown during a diversion..

There is no regulatory limit on actual distance to a diversion when it happens

[ImbracableCrunk]

Descent speed is not relevant to ETOPS operations, nor is actual speed flown during a diversion..

For whatever reasons that are currently above my pay grade, my company has elected M.79/310k as ETOPS driftdown speed. The manual cites the 180 minute limitation. It also states the Captain may change the speeds flown.

Your results may vary.

The messenger.

[BOAC]

Just because your 'company' "has elected M.79/310k as ETOPS driftdown speed." does not affect how you fly it. That IS your 'pay grade'. If your tail is about to fall off after a bomb, I would suggest less than 'M.79/310k' might be wise?

[ImbracableCrunk]

BOAC,


As I wrote previously regarding Emegency Descent speed: That's all in the QRH and POM and FCTM. That doesn't change a quarter of the way over the Pacific or a half way across Kansas.

Emergency descent =/= OEI Driftdown.

[whenrealityhurts]

'Whenrealityisapain.... what would you do if you couldn't descend to a low enough altitude for normal breathing, would you increase the amount of oxygen on-board, and if so, how?

Mutt

------------------------------------

Yeah Mutt, I forgot about the alien force field that prevents aircraft from flying down to 12,500 feet over the Pacific. I'll try to plan for that on my next Hawaii trip. :rolleyes:

[Meikleour]

Whenrealityhurts: no civil airliner that I have ever heard of has had a passenger pressure feed O2 system which would be necessary above 30,000ft. Therefore an emergency descent is always required. Some carriers do indeed carry extra O2 supplies if their routes involve very high enroute MSAs and these will usually be in the low 20s or high teens. Not a situation that the original poster asked about. The only other situation that I have come across is the case with all freighter aircraft which may have depressurisation procedures at the mid twenties in order to fight on board fire.

I guess you already knew all this ? !..............

[whenrealityhurts]

M -

In corporate we can feed 02 to the pax for a couple of hours, stay up and altitude, get the fuel burn.

It's stating the obvious that if you can't feed 150 pax with O2 for the last thousand miles to Hawaii, then you need enough fuel to fly 1000 miles, in say a 737, at 12500 feet, after having flown a couple of hours to the half away point already.

The question was whether an airliner actually had that kind of fuel reserve or not...because given all the stupidity of hiring ab initios pilots, Flex departures, 30000 hour trend monitored engines...it just wouldn't have surprised me if those that planned the trips were just hoping that a depressurization event happened inside of 500 nm of an airport, and that thousand miles in the middle, that one hour window, was just a chance they are willing to take.

No one here has given me the numbers, and I don't expect to get them from pilots who haven't planned a trip in an airliner, as dispatch does that. It a catch 22 to ask an airline pilot how much the fuel burn of a 737 is at 12500 feet, if after 2.5 hours of flying at alt, he has the reserves to continue or get out the life rafts. I honestly don't think most of these guy know.

If they want to prove me wrong, they can supply the numbers for me to verify. I don't see that happening, they will just say that dispatch has ETOPS, call it good, and blindly point the plane East hoping the tapes don't bottom out on the way there.

When you hire guys that are not supposed to ask questions, it's fitting that your not going to get guys that go home and run the numbers and see if they are right.

[galaxy flyer]

WRH

Clearly, you have never seen a computer flight plan for an overwater leg. It is all spelled out for CPs--depressurization, OEI and medical diversions. Fuel burn to CP, Fuel remaining, drift down plan, distances, winds, times and fuel remaining, all planning required. NOBODY coasts out on a guess. I've done many legs with, as many 9 critical points on a CFP by Jeppesen. Petro to Tahiti is one, Honolulu to Koror is another.

In corporate, we don't "stay up and get the fuel burn", we descend to FL100 and divert, as planned. Yes, we have good oxygen supply, but I don't wish to expose the passengers to using oxygen out of constant flow masks for hours, nor expose them to physiological problems at high altitude. Having crossed to HI at lower levels there is no likelihood of problems at FL100

As usual, you are posting your ignorance of airline, military, corporate operations and apathy as to learning more. In military, airline and corporate, I've used reduced power, on condition maintenance, the list goes one, all very successfully.

GF

[BOAC]

wrh - as we suspected, you have no idea and as I said you are wasting our time. As for "In corporate we can feed 02 to the pax for a couple of hours, stay up and altitude, get the fuel burn." - I just cannot believe it! You would have law suits coming out of your ears (assuming you are still alive, of course). Leave ETOPS to the professional pilots. Back to the PC would be best?

the tapes don't bottom out on the way there. - anyone put that in English?

[wiggy]

I'll try to be polite,


Our planning system sounds similar to the one Galaxy Flyer describes. It compares the following three cases and ensures that we always have fuel to divert to the nearest available and suitable alternate in any of the following three cases:

1. Total pressurisation failure, followed by 2 Eng div at 15000'.

2. Engine failure and pressurisation failure, followed by SE div at 15000'

3. Engine fail, drift down, and single engine div.

It's very rare that we see extra fuel added to fill any shortfall at the critical point, that usually happens if you're heading West out of Europe over the mid Atlantic to, e.g. the Caribbean.....BWTF do I know....

It a catch 22 to ask an airline pilot how much the fuel burn of a 737 is at 12500 feet, if after 2.5 hours of flying at alt, he has the reserves to continue or get out the life rafts.

?????

[galaxy flyer]

And, I might add, cockpit procedures to monitor current fuel burn, estimated fuel at the CP(s), weather at the alternates via SATCOM and an in- cockpit plan, if any parameter is heading south. I operate corporate, so I don't have Dispatch watching all this, but we do "re-write" the plan, if fuel burn is not meeting the planned burns (almost never happens, tho)

GF

[Meikleour]

WRT: do you understand the difference between crew O2 systems and those supplied to the passengers AND the reason for these different systems? Your posting suggests a lack of understanding on your part.

[whenrealityhurts]

Gentlemen, let's recap...get you all back on track..

You've passed the half way point from say LAX to HNL...you have lost pressurization, you've dropped down to say 12500...what is your fuel burn at this alt, and how much fuel do you have left to get there.

Simple question requires a simple answer....

[wiggy]

Ah, now you start asking nicely.


I'd love to help but don't fly the 737...

[Meikleour]

WRT: Rule of thumb on B747 was - consumption at 10,000ft was 140% of cruise fuel flow. Hence the usual mandatory fuel add on that is required for oceanic flights.

[mutt]

and I don't expect to get them from pilots who haven't planned a trip in an airliner, as dispatch does that. And who do you think teaches Dispatchers what ETOPS is all about? Who do you think gives Jeppesen the fuel figures for that particular aircraft? Who do you think actually decides on the fuel policies to comply with the regulations........

Even in our part 91 aircraft we know what the fuel flow is at 10,000 feet, together with the ETOPS points, diversion airports and distances...... not required by regulation, but nice to have :):)

As for our corporate aircraft, we do not consider continuing at altitude following a depressurization regardless of the amount of oxygen that we have onboard.

Mutt

[Spooky 2]

Actually the 737-800 handles PHNL or any of the island airports quite well and full tanks are not generally required. The 737 in ETOPS opeartions needs to have the APU running from the ETOPS Entry Point to the Exit Point and that fuel burn is part of the ETOPS flight plan. The biggets question is, do you start it and leave it running at the gate, or start it just prior to the Entry point only to find out that it won't start, thus causing a turn back.

I seem to recall that both the DC10-10 and the L1011-1 used a 2EO ETP, not a simple loss of one engine, combined with the decopmpression. Also there were weights that could cause you to dump fuel during the driftdown to somewhere around 6000' ASL, and then as your weight decreased, climbing back up to 10,000 for the balance of the trip. Kinda hairy!

You would be surprised how many Boeing aircarft have higher burns at 10,000 with 2 engines running than at 10,000 with 1EO thus making the simple loss of pressurization the #1 Critical Fuel Scenario.

[whenrealityhurts]

OK465.

I don't get your numbers, or slang that your using...

Give me your 737 Model.
Departure fuel in gallons/lbs with 150 pax at 175 lbs+25lb bags.
MTOW with departure fuel, pax and bags.
Fuel burn at say 370/390, you choose.
Fuel Remaining just past the half way point from LAX to HNL
Fuel Burn in lbs at 10,000, per hour, time to fly the remaining 1100 nm at ten thousand feet.

Thanks...

[whenrealityhurts]

Don't sweat it Ok-465...76 posts later no one else in here knows what their airliner burns at altitude either.

[mutt]

I'm curious, how much MORE information do you think we should have available to us?



EINN/CYYT - EQUAL TIME POINT DATA - ETP1
- - - - - - - -

DIVERSION SUMMARY - EINN CYYT
TIME 03.01 @ 0290KT
F.L. 0099
FOB 017623
G/C DIST 0945 0872
AVG W/C P024 M001
TEMP @ FL099 M005 P000

BURN SUMMARY FL099 ... 1 ENG. 2 ENG. 1 ENG. 2 ENG.
1LE 1LE 1LE 1LE
DIVERSION 009917 03.33 009768 009658 009917 009797
HOLD 000583 00.15 000584 000737 000583 000736
MAP 001200 001200 001200 001200 001200
CONSERV. 001394 001375 001338 001394 001355
ICE DRAG 002223 002194 001855 002223 001877
ANTI-ICE 000000 000000 000000 000000 000000
APU 000912 000900 000899 000912 000911
TOTAL 016229 03.48 016021 015687 016229 015876
FOB 017623
QTY DIFF. +001394




DRIFTDOWN SUMMARY DATA
CRZ TO BURN FL MSA TO BURN FL MSA FOB LAT LON W
LRC*EINN 010176 100 049 CYYT 010290 100 025 017623 N57354 W035138
1LE*EINN 007961 250 049 CYYT 007954 250 025 017972 N57438 W033444

WARNING FLAGS: M-MSA, D-FUEL DUMP REQ., F-DIVERT FUEL REQ.

DRIFTDOWN DETAIL DATA

DEPRESSURIZED (LRC) DIVERT SUMMARY ...

LAT/LONG N57354 W035138 EINN CYYT
ETP TIME 03.01 @ 0290KT
ETP F.L. 099
ETP FOB 017623
G/C DIST 0945 0872
ETP W/C P024 M001
DRIFTDOWN BURN DATA ... LRC LRC
DRIFT F.L. 100 100
ENROUTE TEMP M010 M009
AVG GWT 057544 057487
MSA F.L. 048 024
DRIFTDOWN DUMP FUEL 000000 000000
EMERGENCY DESCENT 000000 000000
CRUISE 009307 009422
FINAL DESCENT 000130 000130
HOLD 000739 000738
TOTAL 010176 010290

ONE ENGINE INOP DIVERT SUMMARY ...

LAT/LONG N57438 W033444 EINN CYYT
ETP TIME 03.02 @ 0290KT
ETP F.L. 236
ETP FOB 017972
G/C DIST 0899 0917
ETP W/C P006 P012
DRIFTDOWN BURN DATA ... 1LE 1LE
DRIFT F.L. 250 250
ENROUTE TEMP M041 M033
AVG GWT 058943 058947
MSA F.L. 048 024
DRIFTDOWN DUMP FUEL 000000 000000
DRIFTDOWN DESCENT 000052 000052
CRUISE 007104 007097
FINAL DESCENT 000196 000196
HOLD 000609 000609
TOTAL 007961 007954



BTW, this isn't for a 737...... but you will get the idea of how much planning actually goes into overwater flights. If you want to make more sense from these figures, then cut and paste to excel.

Mutt

[ImbracableCrunk]

CRITICAL FUEL CALCULATION 2ENG 1ENG 2ENG 1ENG
CRUISE / FL100 - 17694 03.06 17658 17732 17694 17767
HOLDING/1500FT - 01205 00.15 01206 01092 01205 01091
APU BURN - 00602 00601 00544 00602 00545
ANTI-ICE - 00010 00010 00003 00010 00003
TOTAL FUEL REQD- 19511 03.21 19475 19371 19511 19406These numbers would be for a flight with SFO/OGG ETOPS ALTs.

Note the cruise fuel is less for 2ENG than 1ENG, but the 2ENG numbers take a good hit with the holding and EAI.

[whenrealityhurts]

Read my Post Mutt...still waiting...LAX to HNL

MTOW, Total fuel, fuel burn at alt, fuel remaining at diversion, new fuel burn at 10000k, fuel remaining upon landing.

Come on, are you really going to dance around a simple little performance and planning exercise?

Look if you can't do it, you can't do it. Just stay off.

[BOAC]

Just stay off. - Mutt - take it from me - it is good advice. This poster is on another planet.

[mutt]

737-800 using LAX and HNL as ETOPS alternates, I'm sure that someone of your experience could suggest better alternates :):)


FUEL TIME ETA NGM NAM FL COMP TEMP WEIGHTS
POA PHNL 026845 05:00 0501 2243 2183 380 P010 M50 094.00 OWE
ALT PHDH 000829 00:07 0508
HLD 002377 00:30
RES 000000 00:00
REQ 030051 05:37
XTR 000000 00:00
BLST 000000
ETOP 010678 02:15
TOT 040729 07:52
0022 0022 P003 ATW... ./
026.10 PAYLD
030.05 TO/F
160.83 TO/WT
133.99 LDGWT


KLAX/PHNL - EQUAL TIME POINT DATA - ETP1
- - - - - - - -

DIVERSION SUMMARY - KLAX PHNL
TIME 03.08 @ 0345KT
F.L. 0099
FOB 024975
G/C DIST 1116 1105
AVG W/C P012 P008
TEMP @ FL099 P009 P012

BURN SUMMARY FL099 ... 1 ENG. 2 ENG. 1 ENG. 2 ENG.

DIVERSION 018457 03.29 018074 018355 018169 018457
HOLD 001141 00.15 001004 001141 001003 001141
MAP 001200 001200 001200 001200 001200
CONSERV. 002164 002123 002154 002131 002164
ICE DRAG 000000 000000 000000 000000 000000
ANTI-ICE 001118 001141 001122 001137 001118
APU 000895 000913 000898 000910 000895
TOTAL 024975 03.44 024455 024870 024550 024975
FOB 024975
QTY DIFF. +000000




DRIFTDOWN SUMMARY DATA
CRZ TO BURN FL MSA TO BURN FL MSA FOB LAT LON W
LRC*KLAX 019160 100 046 PHNL 019216 100 074 024975 N28444 W139192
1LE*KLAX 015132 220 046 PHNL 015152 220 074 024975 N28444 W139192

WARNING FLAGS: M-MSA, D-FUEL DUMP REQ., F-DIVERT FUEL REQ.

DRIFTDOWN DETAIL DATA

DEPRESSURIZED (LRC) DIVERT SUMMARY ...

LAT/LONG N28444 W139192 KLAX PHNL
ETP TIME 03.08 @ 0345KT
ETP F.L. 099
ETP FOB 024975
G/C DIST 1116 1105
ETP W/C P012 P008
DRIFTDOWN BURN DATA ... LRC LRC
DRIFT F.L. 100 100
ENROUTE TEMP P007 P010
AVG GWT 136259 136231
MSA F.L. 045 073
DRIFTDOWN DUMP FUEL 000000 000000
EMERGENCY DESCENT 000000 000000
CRUISE 017668 017724
FINAL DESCENT 000348 000348
HOLD 001144 001144
TOTAL 019160 019216

ONE ENGINE INOP DIVERT SUMMARY ...

LAT/LONG N28444 W139192 KLAX PHNL
ETP TIME 03.06 @ 0350KT
ETP F.L. 236
ETP FOB 024975
G/C DIST 1116 1105
ETP W/C P010 P007
DRIFTDOWN BURN DATA ... 1LE 1LE
DRIFT F.L. 220 220
ENROUTE TEMP M015 M013
AVG GWT 138231 138220
MSA F.L. 045 073
DRIFTDOWN DUMP FUEL 000000 000000
DRIFTDOWN DESCENT 000099 000099
CRUISE 013528 013548
FINAL DESCENT 000472 000472
HOLD 001033 001033
TOTAL 015132 015152



BOAC.... its amusing :):)

Mutt

[wiggy]

Good advice BOAC, these demands increasingly sound like they are being posted by someone fishing for the answers to a homework question or an assignment. they certainly don't sound like they're a genuine request for information from a professional aviator.

Rgds.

[BOAC]

BOAC.... its amusing - indeed, but I get my laughs a different way:)

I mean, come on - 'stay high and get the fuel burn with the pax on oxy'?:D:D:D

[mutt]

'stay high and get the fuel burn with the pax on oxy'? He has a different persona for each amusing concept....

I've lost of the names that he has used here, but SSG was the one I remember the most, btw he hates the following:

1: Reduced thrust takeoffs.
2: Optimized V-speeds or improved climb.
3: Low hour cadets.
4: Co-pilots :)

Now I'm sure that he is going to insist that ETOPS is unsafe and we shouldn't do it :):)

Mutt

[Spooky 2]

Way to much attitude and not enough facts here from a couple of posters. Here is a B737-800 180' ETOPS flight plan from KSEA to PHNL. Suggest some might take a careful look at AC120-42B regarding what the parameters for these kinds of operations require.

FUEL TIME CORR OWE 91800 PYLD 41446 APLD .. .. ..
DEST PHNL 33165 0551 . . . . EZFW 133246 MZFW 136000 AZFW .. .. ..
RESV 2973 0035 . . . . ETOW 174200 MTOW 174200 ATOW .. .. ..
DEST-MNVR 0 0000 . . . . ELDW 141035 MLDW 144000 ALDW .. .. ..
ALTERNATE 2090 0021 . . . . PHOG FL150 0087 NM M.54 W/C M003
HOLD-ALT 2538 0030 . . . .
ETOPS ADD 188 0002
ETOPS APU 332 0000
REQD 041286 0719 . . . . NOTE - LDGWT INCLUDES RESERVE FUEL
EXTRA 000000 0000 . . . . NOTE - APM 0000 PCN
TAXI 250 0000 SCHEDULE TIMES ETD 0600/.. .. .. ..

TOTAL
041536 0719 . . . . RTE ETA 1151/.. .. .. ..
INCREMENTAL BURN PER 1000 LBS INCREASE/DECREASE IN TOW: 175

MOST CRITICAL FUEL SCENARIO AT :

ETP02 FUEL EXCESS OF 0
TIME TO
DIST W/C CFR FOB EXC ETP / ALT
ETP1 KPDX/KSFO 0469/0473 P020/P022 009712 030260 20548 01.31/01.23
N41114 W131282
ETP2 KSFO/PHOG 1074/1023 P021/P002 020057 020057 0 03.18/03.11

KPDX/KSFO - EQUAL TIME POINT DATA - ETP01
DIVERSION SUMMARY
ETP LOCATION N41 11.4 W131 28.2 ETE 01.31
GWT AT DIVERSION 163187 FOB

029941
DIVERSION AIRPORTS KPDX KSFO
G/C DIST 0469 0473


CRITICAL FUEL REQUIRED CALCULATION
FLIGHT CONDITION DECOMP DECOMP PRESS

DECOMP DECOMP PRESS
CONFIG 2 ENG. 1 ENG. 1 ENG.

2 ENG. 1 ENG. 1 ENG.
SPEED LRC 310 310

LRC 310 310
F.L. 100 100 180

100 100 180
AVG W/C P020 P020 P029

P022 P022 P023
ENROUTE TEMP ISA M014 M014 M031

M012 M012 M029
FORECAST ICING PCT 000100 000100 000100

000100 000100 000100
TIME TO ALT NO HOLD 01.23 01.20 01.22

01.23 01.20 01.23
CRUISE 007507 007385 006903

007534 007414 006982
DESCENT 000348 000266 000304

000348 000266 000304
HOLD 001400 001288 001292

001399 001288 001291
APU 000306 000295 000302

000305 000295 000304
ICING 000125 000130 000122

000126 000130 000123
TOTAL 009686 009364 008923

009712 009393 009004
CRITICAL FUEL REQUIRED AT ETP01 - DECOMP 2 ENG TO KSFO
AMOUNT TIME
CFR

009712 01.23
FOB 030260
QTY DIFF. 020548


KSFO/PHOG - EQUAL TIME POINT DATA - ETP02
DIVERSION SUMMARY
ETP LOCATION N33 55.2 W143 57.0 ETE 03.18
GWT AT DIVERSION 153163 FOB

019917
DIVERSION AIRPORTS KSFO PHOG
G/C DIST 1074 1023
CRITICAL FUEL REQUIRED CALCULATION
FLIGHT CONDITION DECOMP DECOMP PRESS

DECOMP DECOMP PRESS
CONFIG 2 ENG. 1 ENG. 1 ENG.

2 ENG. 1 ENG. 1 ENG.
SPEED LRC 310 310

LRC 310 310
F.L. 100 100 180

100 100 180
AVG W/C P021 P021 P050

P002 P002 P000
ENROUTE TEMP ISA M005 M005 M019

P004 P004 M005
FORECAST ICING PCT 000100 000100 000100

000100 000100 000100
TIME TO ALT NO HOLD 03.11 02.54 02.42

03.11 02.53 02.46
CRUISE 017224 017224 015133

017534 017379 015856
DESCENT 000348 000266 000305

000348 000266 000296
HOLD 001245 001133 001149

001245 001132 001143
APU 000642 000590 000551

000642 000582 000565
ICING 000281 000297 000262

000288 000300 000274
TOTAL 019740 019510 017400

020057 019659 018134

CRITICAL FUEL REQUIRED AT ETP02 - DECOMP 2 ENG TO PHOG
AMOUNT TIME
CFR

020057 03.11
FOB 020057
QTY DIFF.

0
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[whenrealityhurts]

Spooky 2 -

Why don't you cut and paste the numbers I need out of your form..I'm not making heads or tails out of your company abbreviations.

MTOW
BEW
PAX weight for 150 pax
departing Fuel in lbs
Enroute Alt and fuel burn per hour, time to diversion point
Diversion Alt, (15k), fuel burn per hours, time to destination
Fuel remaining at diversion point.

Thanks.

[Spooky 2]

Not sure why you need the weight of the pax as it tells you the ZFW along with the MTOW? That's all that counts.

Unfortunetly I do not have the computer skills to make this pretty, nor the time. It's there though so it can't be that hard to find.

41,286 is the fuel required and it's easy to spot in the first data block.

[Mad (Flt) Scientist]

the numbers I need
I hope no-one would be soliciting planning data for an ETOPS mission from an internet source. That would seem to be not entirely kosher.

[whenrealityhurts]

Spooky -

So you would take off to Hawaii not knowing your passenger load or BEW for that matter to understand how ZFW was derived?

When was the last time you punched into an FMS and put your starting weights in there?

[Spooky 2]

You really sound counfused. Maybe it's a language problem but I suspect not. Look at the material provided in my post. I don't think the BEW has anything to do with ETOPS...in this case.

Are you a Boeing 737NG pilot? Yes or no?

[galaxy flyer]

Spooky 2

You aren't familiar with SGG, are you?

GF

[Spooky 2]

I guess not. Just looked at this thread kinda late in the game.

[Spooky 2]

I don't think I have ever seen a box on the FMC that asks for BEW?

[galaxy flyer]

Sorry, I meant SSG, a denizen here with strange views on how FAR 25 or airline ops should be accomplished. That he could not digest several flight plans shown here says it all.

I've never seen BEW, either.

GF

[whenrealityhurts]

Spooky - Yeah, why would you need to know the passenger weights or the basic empty weight of your aircraft?....lol.

Alright, I've got better things to do...:bored:

[mutt]

FUEL TIME CORR OWE 91800 PYLD 41446 APLD .. .. ..
DEST PHNL 33165 0551 . . . . EZFW 133246 MZFW 136000 AZFW .. .. ..
RESV 2973 0035 . . . . ETOW 174200 MTOW 174200 ATOW .. .. ..

Look at the information that Spooky2 printed in post #86.... It shows Operating Weight Empty, Payload, Estimated Zero Fuel Weight and Estimated Takeoff Weight.........

You keep asking about Basic Empty Weight, why on earth would a crew need to know the Basic Empty Weight on an airliner? Aha, maybe it's because you don't know the difference between Basic Empty Weight and Basic Operating Weight?

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6158/6176785047_35bdeba5fb.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pprunemutt/6176785047/)

You can easily see the difference between Empty Weight and Basic Operating weight, so why would a crew need to know the BEW?

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6173/6177326774_018cef11e5_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pprunemutt/6177326774/)

It's quite amusing that you start asking questions about the LAX-HNL route, but when the information is given to you, you appear unable to either understand it or to know how to use it, so you immediately divert the conversation.........

Mutt

[whenrealityhurts]

Mutt -

Let's imagine for three minutes that you fly airliners and that you are going to do the longest over water trip on Earth...

Now imagine that your airline has chosen the very best pilots to do this seemingly demanding trip, because you just don't have many options for a number of problems that can happen enroute....you either go back, you go forward, you put it in the water.

Translated for those that don't fly over mountains, in the ice, over hostile terrain at night, that means you deal with the problem up in the air, better yet, get ahead of the problem so that it can be prevented and mitigated.

Ergo, the sharp pilot will want to know if the $10/ hour dispatcher got his weights right, if the BEW or BOW is correct, if the dispatcher calculated 150 midgets to get past fuel limitations or if they calculated correctly for the charter flight of football players at an average weight of 225 lbs a piece.

For an airline pilot to not need to know the weight of his aircraft, the passenger weights, not know his fuel burns at altitude and just get a little 8x11 page of information from some girl in dispatch saying...'your good to go' and blindly head off out of over the Pacific is beyond stupid...it's so stupid that I can't believe even the airlines are that dumb...it's so stupid that I can't believe even the most sell out unprofessional, chief pilot butt kissing FO wouldn't sit there half way to HNL and not want to pull out the book and a little calculator and try to see, just for grins, if the numbers are correct.

There are only two answers for this...either you guys are complete idiots in every sense of the aviation term or you have been culled by the very best chief pilots to not ask questions, not wonder whether the numbers are correct, not ponder looking out over the water if your going to make it, because the culling process is so extensive that they have found the guys that will follow the captain into the side of a mountain and not ask questions.

My guess is the latter, as we have a library full of crashes where the FO went right to the scene of the accident by saying little more then 'well um, I think we are a little low'.

So why would I expect that FO, now a captain, flying to Hawaii to actually question the numbers, to actually want to know why 150 football players loading up only equates to 10000 pounds of passenger weight that mysteriously doesn't make it on your computerized dispatch form.

You don't want to know..out of sight, out of mind.

Mutt, any pretext that your some sort of aviation expert on this forum is a long dead conclusion on my part.

You don't give me the numbers I ask because your either to dumb to give them to me, or you don't want to give them to me. If you can't do a simple fuel burn calc, if you can't pull the numbers out of some abreviated company dispatch for all of us to see clearly, you hiding, your stalling, your do everything you can to muddy this up, hence in the end, your not for real.

Have a nice day.

[aterpster]

mutt:

In post #39 I stated the procedure we used on the L-1011 at TWA. I can't imagine has changed much at all for the LAX-HNL OR HNL-LAX tracks. One of our westbound crews (I was on layover in HNL to take the airplane back to LAX) had to shut down No.1 and pull the firepull to stop the leak. They were not too far west of the ETP so they headed for Hilo. Had they not followed company procedure and instead continued to HNL they would not have made it.

[Mad (Flt) Scientist]

whenrealityhurts

I'm sure others who have tried to be civil and work with you can speak up for themselves, but I personally can't let that collection of stupidity and arrogance go unremarked.

if you had bothered to read any of the details mutt and spooky2 actually posted, then you'd find that the information you apparently think is unknown is there, plain as the nose on your face.

And just in case that's too complex for you, look at the Perf Init page mutt posted. Right there:
pax/weight
5/170.

It even does the maths for you, 850lbs.

[galaxy flyer]

It's settled then, 25 years of ETOPS experience, million of hours of safe overwater ops, not an open ocean ditching since Captain Ogg's in a B377 was all dumb luck. We need no stinking computer flight plans, we'll come in 3 hours early, spin out a plan using graphs and the trusty E-6B. That a CFP is vastly more accurate is irrelevant.

Thanks, SSG, Whenrealityhurts for the enlightenment.

GF

[Spooky 2]

Suspect that WRH is an MS sim kinda guy. Nothing wrong with that but when you argue with those that are trying to enlighten, := it becomes somewhat futle in continuing the conversation. To bad because it is an interesting subject.

[whenrealityhurts]

Galaxy

Maybe thats the point. Either you represent the airline industry, which doesnt jive with the safety record, or you and your ilk are being exposed as frauds.

[wiggy]

I'm genuinely curious as to your agenda both here and now also on the Max demonstrated Cross wind thread.

You've had plenty of very informative, accurate and generally polite replies from folks who have had years of hands on experience in the industry and ETOPS ( Spooky, mutt, Galaxy for example). They've provided you with plenty of information, tried to be open with you and yet now you are resorting to accusing people of being "frauds" := :=

Why the attitude?

[galaxy flyer]

"Exposed as frauds", by whom? You, I think not.

It is you who refuses to post a legitimate reply to what you see as safety or operational discrepancies. The "industry" has developed wonderfully accurate, safe and tested procedures for overwater, not to mention your other hobby horses, that have stood the test of experience. If these are insufficient, in your view, post something positive to improve our procedures. The information posted here is standard, military, airline, corporate, where are our failings?

Using ZFW is an industry standard, pilots don't need to add up each passenger and bag to check the work of dispatch; just as I could spot an error in the load plan climbing the ladder in the C-5. No experienced pilot needs to do manual flight plans. Where there have their been errors, like EK at YMML, it is rare and investigated and corrected.

The record speaks for itself.

GF

[whenrealityhurts]

'Operational discrepancies?'

Galaxy, every pilot on Earth knows the weight of the passengers on board..how a pilot departing for 6 hours over the ocean wouldn't want to have those numbers is beyond me.

Known ZFW as some type of 'good enough' is beyond silly..because that is taking blind faith that the passenger load is correct, and that it has been correctly added to a correct BEW/BOW...again beyond silly.

Galaxy...this isn't even a debate...

To the other poster that mentioned Mutt's pax numbers of '5'....850lbs is right up with Mutt's modus operandi to plan an airline trip to Hawaii with five passengers to make the fuel limitations..

All this said...well I have learned that this is the Internet...so if you guys are experienced airline captains never looking back into the cabin to get some general idea on what your passenger load is..well then your going to have to take my word for it that I am posting this from the International Space Station. Yes, I am an astronaut...and I will be doing my first space walk, then skydive from orbit into the backyard of the Playboy mansion for a massage.

Fair is fair...if you can dream up who you want to be, then so can I. Good day.

[westhawk]

Yes, I am an astronaut.
JJ) My name, Jose Jimenez
DH) And you`re the cheif astronaut with the United States Interplantary Expeditionary Force?
JJ) I am the cheif astronaut, with the United States, Interplanetary, (long pause).... My name Jose Jimenez
DH) Mr. Jimenez could you tell us a little about your space suit?
JJ) Yes, it`s very uncomfortable
DH) How much, how much did the space suit cost?
JJ) That eh space suit cost 18,000 dollars
DH) 18,000 dollars?
JJ) Yes
DH) That seems rather expensive.
JJ) Well it has two pair of pants ...So that`s only 9,000 dollars a piece...
DH) I`ve been noticing this, Mr. Jimenez. What is this called, a crash helmet?

JJ) Oh I hope not

I tried to find this routine on the usual internet video sources, but without success.

[Mad (Flt) Scientist]

To the other poster that mentioned Mutt's pax numbers of '5'....850lbs is right up with Mutt's modus operandi to plan an airline trip to Hawaii with five passengers to make the fuel limitations..

You, sir, are a retard, pure and simple.

Anyone with half a brain could have understood it to be an EXAMPLE of what the Perf init input screen looks, like, not the one specific to a flight to Hawai'i. Unfortunately, that requires half a brain more than you seem to have.

And, incidentally, mutt's data had (if I read it correctly) a payload of 26.1 (tonnes, or 1000s of pounds, it hardly matters, it certainly isn't 850lbs/5 pax)

Spooky2, on the other hand, had a payload of 41446. I'm pretty sure his is lbs, so again, a lot more than 5 pax.

[mutt]

850lbs is right up with Mutt's modus operandi to plan an airline trip to Hawaii with five passengers to make the fuel limitations.. Nope, we don't use Honeywell FMS Manuals as flight planning tools..... the picture was to educate YOU about BEW and BOW....... but as usual you use something like this to divert the discussion rather than focusing on the pertinent points..... poor show :(:(:(

Known ZFW as some type of 'good enough' is beyond silly..because that is taking blind faith that the passenger load is correct, and that it has been correctly added to a correct BEW/BOW...again beyond silly.
Have you ever seen a DCS LOADSHEET? Do you know the role of a LOAD CONTROLLER?

In the words of GB Shaw, Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance............

Mutt

[Spooky 2]

This guy would be funny if he were not so pathetic. Lets just hope he is in fact nothing more than a wanna be, and he does not actually sit in either the left seat or right seat of an airliner. I think the best solution is to ignore him/her.

[Mr Optimistic]

Sadly he sounds English.

[westhawk]

Sadly he sounds English.

Even more sadly, I think he might be one of ours. :{