Is this really an emergency - ETOPS

[JammedStab]

The American Airlines Boeing 767 (N389AA) was en route from Chicago O'Hare (KORD) to London Heathrow (EGLL). While en route and at 5030N 045W the crew were conducting the required check of the crossfeed system prior to the ETOPS portion of the flight and determined that the left main fuel pump low pressure lights did not illuminate with the pump switches in the off position nor was there an EICAS warning. After discussion with maintenance, the flight declared an emergency and requested a diversion to John F. Kennedy (KJFK) where it landed safely. Maintenance conducted an operational test of the engine fuel feed system and all tested normal. The aircraft was returned to service.

[ABBOT]

The aircraft would not have been able to continue with its ETOPS routing as the cross feed is an item that must be functional. Fuel allowing a non ETOPS re route could be considered, failing that a diversion would be required. Only people who know the full scenario were the crew involved. Maybe other factors existed.

[de facto]

Emergency?i doubt...maybe company procedure.
I am not aware the switching off of pumps is required to do a crossfeed test..
Was it the engine driven fuel pump or electrical pump annunciator not working?

[flyingchanges]

Overweight landing requires declaration of emergency.

[Wizofoz]

Overweight landing requires declaration of emergency.

Really? Can you reference that?

And if so, did the aircraft not have fuel jettison?

[aterpster]

flying changes:

Overweight landing requires declaration of emergency.

I suspect that varies from operator to operator. It is an "emergency" operation of the airplane. My company did not tell us to "declare." We were required to enter it in the aircraft log that we did an overweight landing and whether the landing was normal or hard.

We were also required to fill out a company form for pilot's use of emergency authority.

[flyingchanges]

Company policy.

Of course we have no way of knowing if this is the reason for declaring the emergency.

[787 CheckAirman]

Evidently, this procedure at 30W was a specific OpsSpec requirement for that airline. We have no such procedure in our OpsSpec. Whatever the OpsSpec says you have to do in ETOPS, you have to abide by that. So, emergency to some, not an emergency to others.

[jeffaajones]

I am on the 787 but I think only certain 767 aircraft can jettison fuel. An overweight landing might have been required. At American Airlines an overweight landing is a mandatory emergency declaration.

[Spooky 2]

Maybe I'm missing something here but 30W seems a little late to be confirming your ETOPS cabability. Shouldn't this be done prior to the ETOPS entry point?:confused:

[Idle Thrust]

The first post in this thread indicates 45W.

[Spooky 2]

Thanks for pointing that out. Not sure how 30W plays in the story?

[nats]

Most likely the declaration of an emergency is because they were in Oceanic airspace outside radar coverage. To do a turn back requires a set of procedures to be followed, which can lead to a loss of procedural separation from other flights. By declaring an emergency, it will mean the crews will receive priority from the HF radio operators and the ATC staff in charge of that piece of airspace.

[aviatorhi]

So it sounds like the system WAS operational... just the pump was not turning off and/or the indication was malfunctioning.

If I have that correct I highly doubt it would be considered an emergency or worth turning back for. What it is, however, is an opportunity for AA pilots to cost the company money, something they've taken every opportunity to do due to their ongoing union v company issues.

[Phileas Fogg]

As busy as it is would JFK accept a diversion were it not an emergency?

i.e. Did they declare an emergency just to be able to divert to where they had a maintenance base?

[single chime]

1) crew checks systems prior entry into ETOPS area as per FAA
2) check is not ok so cannot enter said area
3) only way to get out of NATS OTS is declaring emergency (as noted above by NATS)
4) there was no "LAND AT THE NEAREST SUITABLE AIRPORT" so crew flew to JFK in coordination with their OPS
5) who says you are not allowed to divert to JFK or other busy airport?
6) if PIC would have carried on and FAA found out, PIC could have been fined and AA lost ETOPS thus costing millions of $
7) non event

[oceancrosser]

As busy as it is would JFK accept a diversion were it not an emergency?

i.e. Did they declare an emergency just to be able to divert to where they had a maintenance base?

Diverting into JFK has not proved to be a problem for my company. W/o emergenciones.

[GlueBall]

6) if PIC would have carried on and FAA found out, PIC could have been fined and AA lost ETOPS thus costing millions of $

...so one errant pilot could cause the loss of ETOPS authority for the carrier, eh? :ooh:

[single chime]

Yes, it COULD.
Happened at my previous mob, 3 months without ETOPS did cost millions...because one captain wanted to go home on a certain day.