American flies Non-ETOPS A321 to Hawaii [Archive]

Gordomac

12th Sep 2015, 09:14

Dave , I think we all could. What a splendid idea. I once had a tech prob that led to an aircraft change. Replacement bird had unserviceable APU but we were still dispatched ETOPS. Because of previous experiences I was completely paranoid and remonstrated with dispatch about how I felt their latest attempt to drop me in the poo would not succeed. I was told by the fabbo CP to relax. No one was coming after me ! Mind you, you could paint "ETOPS" on a non-ETOPS plane in the hope that some rotter would fall for it ! Damn, here I go again...................................here come the trolls..............................!

ironbutt57

12th Sep 2015, 12:02

ahhhhh yes the (dis)integrated ops centre....

TURIN

12th Sep 2015, 12:33

Maybe AAL could take a leaf out of United's book:

They already have....

http://static.panoramio.com/photos/large/64476013.jpg

Ok that is a US Airways craft but AA are the same I think.

Having said that I can't find an image of a New American liveried 757 with ETOPS on the nose gear doors. :O

Spooky 2

12th Sep 2015, 13:28

Whether it was there or not, it is required to be there.

DaveReidUK

12th Sep 2015, 13:52

Having said that I can't find an image of a New American liveried 757 with ETOPS on the nose gear doors.AAL's A321s helpfully have the aircraft type on the NW door above the fleet number (presumably in case pilots forget and think they are walking round a 757).

Hotel Tango

12th Sep 2015, 13:55

Looking quickly through my own photos and those on a well known aviation photo site, the only American A321s with ETOPS displayed on them which I could find are the former USAir aircraft, including those now in AAL livery.

Airbubba

12th Sep 2015, 14:19

From the article in the link:
Quote:

I wonder who ended up taking the blame for that one!

Easy, the Captain did.

Yep, it doesn't matter if you were set up like a bowling pin at the last minute with the wrong plane, the wrong paperwork or missing ETOPS weather, it's your fault as PIC these days. And, if it isn't already there, a paragraph buried deeply in the manual will soon probably have you double check the tail number against some OPSPEC's list of approved ETOPS planes.

Normally an ETOPS flight requires a special maintenance release, was this missed or was it inadvertently signed off on a non-ETOPS plane?

I heard it was 3 check airman that flew it there.

Check airmen flying to Hawaii? I'm shocked, shocked I tell you. ;)

A lot of those folks write the books but some don't read them in my experience. When they blunder into a regulatory issue like this, with nobody hurt and nothing bent, typically their check airman letter is suspended for, say, six months. They teach sims, fly the plane and work on training materials (like a new ETOPS preflight bulletin) with little loss of pay.

In this case since all three pilots were probably similarly qualified, the punishment from the feds will probably be the same even though one is signed for the plane from a recent similar event I am familiar with.

And, at least they were already in position in HNL for the Part 91 non-ETOPS ferry back, right? :ok:

J.O.

12th Sep 2015, 14:21

American never purchased the narrow body Airbus - all of them are former USAir / America West fins.

Spooky 2

12th Sep 2015, 15:02

Not likely to be a Part 91 but rather Part 121 issued ferry permit. The paperwork required for going from 121 to 91 and back to 121 is akin to a sex change. :*

Hotel Tango

12th Sep 2015, 15:05

American never purchased the narrow body Airbus - all of them are former USAir / America West fins.

The ex USAir examples retained their USAir registrations and ETOPS markings. The newer batch (still in the process of being delivered) are allocated typical AAL registrations and apparently do not seem to indicate their ETOPS status where applicable. Of course it could be that only some of the former USAir examples are ETOPS certified.

Airbubba

12th Sep 2015, 17:10

Not likely to be a Part 91 but rather Part 121 issued ferry permit. The paperwork required for going from 121 to 91 and back to 121 is akin to a sex change.

Izzat so? :confused:

It's been quite a while but I've certainly ferried a widebody Part 91 for a Part 121 carrier without a Part 121 ferry permit. At least I think I have.

The paperwork looks the pretty much the same except there is no signature line for the captain on the Part 91 dispatch release. I'll let the purists argue over whether you are actually dispatched in this instance.

I was thinking that you needed a ferry permit for certain maintenance problems but that you could carry an otherwise functional non-ETOPs twin overwater Part 91 empty without a permit. Even with the ferry permit, I believe the operation is considered Part 91 for crew rest and weather purposes.

But a lot of this stuff depends on the OPSPEC's and FOM for a particular carrier. Anybody know how AA does it (this week ;))?

Herod

12th Sep 2015, 17:22

Never having been an ETOPS operator, can someone explain what happens beyond the (convenient) PNR to suddenly make them realise they were non-ETOPS?

misd-agin

12th Sep 2015, 17:41

Facts -

AA has about 70+ Airbus'. Growing by 25-35 each year. That's not including LUS's Airbus'

It was two regular line pilots.

No, the Captain was not found at fault.

AA ETOPS Airbus' have ETOPS on the fuselage.

aterpster

12th Sep 2015, 18:29

Airbubba:

Normally an ETOPS flight requires a special maintenance release, was this missed or was it inadvertently signed off on a non-ETOPS plane?
I was working when our 767 fleet was the first to become ETOPs qualified. But, for each ETOPs flight, maintenance had to make an entry in the aircraft maintenance log that the ETOPs inspection and necessary maintence was completed.

thump

12th Sep 2015, 18:38

You can DEFINITELY go from 121 to 91 and back. You just can't carry passengers on the part 91 leg. I work for a carrier with about 200+ planes and we do this ALL THE TIME. Ferry permits still have their place in our ops, but part 91 repo is a near daily occurrence.

DaveReidUK

12th Sep 2015, 18:39

AA ETOPS Airbus' have ETOPS on the fuselage.

It's either in very, very small letters or only recently applied:

Photo: N133AN (CN: 6482) American Airlines Airbus A321-231 by Alex Brodkey Photoid: 8003369 - JetPhotos.Net (http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=8003369)

Hotel Tango

12th Sep 2015, 19:11

Today's flight was operated by N127AA. Unfortunately the most recent photos I can find date back to June this year. They certainly don't show any indication of ETOPS on the exterior paintwork. Perhaps, as Dave R suggests, it is a very recent addition.

J.O. said: American never purchased the narrow body Airbus - all of them are former USAir / America West fins.

According to Airbus the order was signed by AMERICAN AIRLINES July 20th, 2011.

misd-agin

12th Sep 2015, 19:35

Dave - I can't see the picture. Can you tell me what the three digit fleet number is on the nose gear door? That will tell if it's a ETOPS a/c.

DaveReidUK

12th Sep 2015, 19:38

Dave - I can't see the picture. Can you tell me what the three digit fleet number is on the nose gear door? That will tell if it's a ETOPS a/c.

N133AN is fleet no 865.

It's the most recent of AAL's 16 ETOPS A321s to be delivered (f/nos 850-865).

misd-agin

12th Sep 2015, 19:43

865 is an ETOPS jet. You should see ETOPS on the fuselage. It's aligned vertically with the forward edge of the nose landing gear door. Easy enough to see from 5' away.

DaveReidUK

12th Sep 2015, 21:18

865 is an ETOPS jet. You should see ETOPS on the fuselage.Presumably a very recent addition, then, which would explain the absence of any photos showing on the 'Net showing the markings.

It's aligned vertically with the forward edge of the nose landing gear door.So very close to the maximum towbar angle markings?

Easy enough to see from 5' away.Though not easy enough to detect its absence on the walkaround for the flight in question.

misd-agin

12th Sep 2015, 22:00

If you're looking for it while doing the walk around it's hard to miss.

Not sure why it's not in the picture posted. Maybe it was added after delivery but before they started doing ETOPS operations? Newer pictures should have them.

And it's behind the nose gear doors. It's about the same distance behind the doors that the steering angle limit line is forward of the gear doors.

Station_Calling

12th Sep 2015, 22:04

Replacement bird had unserviceable APU but we were still dispatched ETOPS.

Don't know about your type, but some types allow ETOPS despatch, albeit only ETOPS 120, with a U/S APU.

SC.

G-CPTN

12th Sep 2015, 22:05

Would it not be better to have non-ETOPS aircraft identified (as that is the major information that is significant)?

misd-agin

12th Sep 2015, 23:58

ETOPS fleet size is 15. Non-ETOPS fleet size is several hundred.

172driver

13th Sep 2015, 00:02

Longtimer, the image you posted shows fleet no 859. The frame being discussed in the previous and subsequent posts is 865...... Just sayin'.

grrowler

13th Sep 2015, 00:03

We require an EDTO preflight to be signed out by an engineer, based on system serviceability, etc. I'm not sure a decal on the nose gear door is the best way of determining if the aircraft is EDTO, in fact it could be misleading depending on MELs.

aterpster

13th Sep 2015, 00:56

grrowler:
We require an EDTO preflight to be signed out by an engineer, based on system serviceability, etc. I'm not sure a decal on the nose gear door is the best way of determining if the aircraft is EDTO, in fact it could be misleading depending on MELs.

Absolutely!!

jmmoric

13th Sep 2015, 01:46

FlightlessParrot

13th Sep 2015, 05:39

Why not put "NON-ETOPS" on instead of ETOPS?

Wouldn't it be easier to spot a NON-ETOPS when doing a walkaround, than spot an ETOPS? It may trigger more in the brain than the absence of the word "ETOPS".

I think not, for two reasons.

1. Marking non-ETOPS would not be fail-safe if the mark were omitted.

2. Very many people simply do not register negatives. If you were to stand up before a group of people and say "The sky is not yellow," a significant proportion of them would swear blind you had told them the sky was yellow. It's so deep that the high level of intelligence required of flight crew wouldn't be a guarantee.

DaveReidUK

13th Sep 2015, 07:48

ETOPS fleet size is 15.

Sixteen (16), as per my previous post. Fleet numbers are 850 to 865, tail numbers are N118xx to N133xx.

Longtimer, the image you posted shows fleet no 859. The frame being discussed in the previous and subsequent posts is 865...... Just sayin'.

Longtimer's post is gone, presumably because the image size breaches PPRuNe's rules. But we're actually talking about non-ETOPS N137AA and comparing it with the aforementioned 16 ETOPS aircraft in an effort to determine whether all the latter have external markings identifying them as such, the absence of which could/should have alerted the crew on the walkaround to the fact that they were about to operate a non-ETOPS aircraft.

If it turns out that not all ETOPS aircraft have those markings, then that would potentially be a contributory factor.

Tu.114

13th Sep 2015, 09:41

A question from a non-Airbus and non-ETOPS guy: Is there a difference in systems between an ETOPS and a non-ETOPS A321, or is it "just" a regulatory thing?

DaveReidUK

13th Sep 2015, 10:06

A question from a non-Airbus and non-ETOPS guy: Is there a difference in systems between an ETOPS and a non-ETOPS A321

AAL's ETOPS A321s have an additional life raft in the ceiling and extra tankage.

Tu.114

13th Sep 2015, 10:12

DaveReid, thank You.

TURIN

13th Sep 2015, 11:46

A question from a non-Airbus and non-ETOPS guy: Is there a difference in systems between an ETOPS and a non-ETOPS A321, or is it "just" a regulatory thing?

It's also a maintenance and operations difference.
EG. Checking the IDG oil level and filter bypass pop out indicator before each flight.
All certifying maintenance personnel need to undertake regular ETOPS continuation and awareness training.
All critical components need to be certified as ETOPS compliant etc.

aterpster

13th Sep 2015, 12:33

Turin:

It's also a maintenance and operations difference.
EG. Checking the IDG oil level and filter bypass pop out indicator before each flight.
All certifying maintenance personnel need to undertake regular ETOPS continuation and awareness training.
All critical components need to be certified as ETOPS compliant etc.

All of those plus the MEL is more restrictive.

Sailvi767

13th Sep 2015, 13:39

Generally there are quite a few changes from ETOPS to non ETOPS aircraft however they very from aircraft types. Generally you need a additional independent electrical source (usually a HMG) that will function with either engine shut down. A APU certified to start and supply electrical power at all altitudes. A cargo fire suppression system with more agent capacity and a metering system. Avionics changes are often needed and a dual HF radio installation. There are numerous other changes that may be required.
There are as mentioned quite different maintenance requirements including how engine performance is tracked and monitored.

Airbubba

13th Sep 2015, 13:51

And, ETOPS, in the U.S. at least, now applies to aircraft with more than two engines for flights more than 180 minutes from an alternate.

MarkerInbound

13th Sep 2015, 16:00

To be clear, that's 3 and 4 engine passenger carrying aircraft.

Airbubba

13th Sep 2015, 16:22

To be clear, that's 3 and 4 engine passenger carrying aircraft.

Yep, like the new rest rules, cargo carriers are exempt.

LASJayhawk

13th Sep 2015, 17:17

Seems this has reached the main stream media.

American Airlines accidentally flew the wrong plane from L.A. to Hawaii last month - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/09/13/american-airlines-accidentally-flew-the-wrong-plane-from-l-a-to-hawaii-last-month/)

it came to their attention from pilots chatting anonymously online.

misd-agin

13th Sep 2015, 18:42

All AA 321 have the extra fuel tanks. No difference between ETOPS and non-ETOPS fuel capacity.

msbbarratt

14th Sep 2015, 06:38

Still, nice to see that it got there and back without incident.

Nemrytter

14th Sep 2015, 06:54

it came to their attention from pilots chatting anonymously online.Off topic but something that bugs me is that most journalists nowadays just get everything from the internet.
Must be a depressing job to trawl farcebook, tw@tter and this place for anything vaguely newsworthy.

DaveReidUK

14th Sep 2015, 08:20

All AA 321 have the extra fuel tanks. No difference between ETOPS and non-ETOPS fuel capacity.

Fair enough, I stand corrected on the tanks.

Any joy yet on a picture of those elusive external ETOPS markings?

Oilhead

14th Sep 2015, 08:36

deptrai

14th Sep 2015, 09:16

The Captain absolutely is at fault. He signed for the aircraft under FAR121

yes, however it's a shared responsibility with the dispatcher: "no person may start a flight unless an aircraft dispatcher specifically authorizes that flight" (121 Subpart U)

and "The pilot in command and the aircraft dispatcher are jointly responsible for the preflight planning, delay, and dispatch release of a flight in compliance with this chapter and operations specifications." (Subpart T)

a sub-fleet is operationally challenging...as it has just been proven.

Gordomac

14th Sep 2015, 09:47

Herod : Re your post 59 ; I think it might be tea & biscuits with the Fleet Captain. Put round the other way, non-ETOPS but you find yourself in an ETOPS segment (?). I was on the N Atlantic, non-ETOPS aircraft and non-ETOPS route but with skillfull, routine, geometric compass and Douglas Protractor, found ourselves ETOPS for 10 minutes. OK, 80 nm is nothing but with my history of historic abuse & persecution, I volunteered the info & got a right royal ticking off. Yeah, I hear you all saying I should have kept quiet but with my history, I would have faced public ridicule and a spot on the Larry King show ! That company went bust (probably my fault) but in the next, a long sector could be made a lot shorter by a direct route which would take you ETOPS (for about 10 minutes) Lots did it,without ETOPS clearance but with my background, I stuck to the rules. Still got set up like the proverbial ten pin 15 years later though !Nowadays, much less stressful in my inflatable boat, in my own pool. Dinghy practice anyone ?

alwayzinit

14th Sep 2015, 10:16

Have never worked for a fully legally dispatched airline, with licensed Dispatcher as in this case.
It has always struck me a slightly squiffy that a guy who stays on the ground can make and overrule the operating Captain, from what I have been told by US pilots.
In the UK and ME there is an ETOPS preflight release box in the Techlog. Obviously a DO NOT MISS signature acceptance preflight.
Do the non ETOPS and ETOPS aircraft share a common techlog page format? If so that is a real man trap that can be easily rectified.

ironbutt57

14th Sep 2015, 11:13

tea and bikkies for the dispatcher and Captain...and FO for not raising any question...

Gridl0k

14th Sep 2015, 12:31

"According comments [sic] from an American Airlines spokesperson, both A321 variants are both [sic] equipped with similar safety gear, including life rafts."

American Airlines accidentally used the wrong plane to fly to Hawaii | The Verge (http://www.theverge.com/2015/9/13/9320061/american-airlines-accidentally-used-the-wrong-plane-to-fly-to-hawaii)

LME (GOD)

14th Sep 2015, 12:43

This is a scheduling/dispatch error. The aircraft was ETOPS capable but not yet been added to the op-spec as an ETOPS certified aircraft. The engineers and pilots have no easy visibility on this part of the process. I'm sure the FAA having in-depth discussions in the new ops center!

MarkerInbound

14th Sep 2015, 13:08

It has always struck me a slightly squiffy that a guy who stays on the ground can make and overrule the operating Captain, from what I have been told by US pilots.

It'so more of a check and balance system. You wouldn't want us cowboy Yank pilots going hither and yon without adult supervision would you? The Captain always has the power of the parking brake. One of the questions I remember from the dispatcher oral was, "Who cancels a flight?" The Captain can say he's not flying the trip. Scheduling will just round up another pilot. If the Dispatcher says "We can't fly to XWZ this morning" the flight disappears from the schedule.

I've heard this was the crew's first real ETOPS flights. Certainly their first to Hawaii. There will be plenty of blame to go around. The aircraft schedulers built a plan with this airframe going to Hawaii. Dispatch cut paperwork sending the plane to Hawaii. The crew was the last link in the chain.

deptrai

14th Sep 2015, 13:27

The crew was the last link in the chain

that was my immediate thought as well. Purely legally, both the captain and dispatcher are to blame. But there's probably lots of holes in the swiss cheese, and from an operational perspective, a sub-fleet can be challenging, particularly when it's new for everyone.

It has always struck me a slightly squiffy that a guy who stays on the ground can make and overrule the operating Captain. A simple cross-check, not unheard of in aviation? More pairs of eyes etc. As for "guys who stay on the ground and overrule the captain", if a LAME says "no I'm not going to sign the maintenance release"...no sane captain would feel hurt in his pride and feel overruled...(?)

misd-agin

14th Sep 2015, 14:00

The plane was not ETOPS capable. It was not a certification issue.

I've seen photos with 'ETOPS' on the fuselage. Medium/pale blue, vertically aligned above the small nose gear door's forward edge.

As far as signing for a jet - if mx missed something in the heavy C check are you responsible? Didn't you just say you signed for the airplane? So saying someone signed for the airplane is a statement that doesn't cover all situations.

"But there's probably lots of holes in the swiss cheese, and from an operational perspective, a sub-fleet can be challenging, particularly when it's new for everyone."

G-CPTN

14th Sep 2015, 14:00

Was this a case of a potentially unsafe aircraft being used?
Or was it just a certifying oversight?

What physical equipment was missing?

aterpster

14th Sep 2015, 14:37

This incident has gotten legs in the Los Angeles media market. They aren't letting go of it.

alwayzinit

14th Sep 2015, 15:06

deptrai, I wasn't having dig. Just from the info from US pilots I work with, the Dispatcher decides the fuel etc for a flight, if I'm wrong apologies.

Can anyone tell me if the logbook formats are the same in non-etops aircraft as etops aircraft?

misd-agin

14th Sep 2015, 15:30

Same logbook format. Every ETOPS flight has a requirement for an ETOPS release.

Dispatcher plans the flight w/fuel. Captain can overrule. Fuel increase vs. dispatcher's plan? It's in the single digit range (<10% of flights).

Ambient Sheep

14th Sep 2015, 15:31

Currently the #1 "most read" story on the BBC News website. :-(

American Airlines flies uncertified plane to Hawaii - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34248758)

Airbubba

14th Sep 2015, 17:14

The Captain absolutely is at fault. He signed for the aircraft under FAR121, accepting that the aircraft, weather etc was satisfactory for the proposed route.

One of a Captains final actions before push is to inspect the maintenance status of the aircraft as indicated by the logbook, ensuring amongst other things, that an ETOPS predeparture inspection has been conducted.

I was on the N Atlantic, non-ETOPS aircraft and non-ETOPS route but with skillfull, routine, geometric compass and Douglas Protractor, found ourselves ETOPS for 10 minutes. OK, 80 nm is nothing but with my history of historic abuse & persecution, I volunteered the info & got a right royal ticking off.

A colleague of mine flew between two Asian cities on an overwater route that was normally non-ETOPS (you know where this one is going ;)). Shortly before departure he was given new paperwork with an alternate routing further offshore to avoid a large area of embedded thunderstorms.

Everything looked good and off they went. They were on airways, in Class II airspace for a while, overwater qualified, extra fuel for the weather, no problem.

On arrival, the captain took a closer look at the route (it was in the paper chart days) and it looked like they were in the ETOPS area of operation for a few minutes.

For the three ETOPS airlines I've worked for these areas were defined by hard mileages in the OPSPEC's, not estimated times corrected for winds.

And, in some 'theaters', the 60 minute mileage applies, in others (areas of benign neglect :)) you can go to 75 minutes before you need ETOPS on a twin.

And, of course, the mileages themselves vary depending on what part of the world you are operating in.

Anyway, to help avoid the possibility of a future miscue in this situation, my colleague dutifully wrote an extensive report with recommendations to change the routine dispatch of this sector to ETOPS, at least during the monsoon season. After all, the aircraft, crews, dispatchers and maintenance were already ETOPS qualified.

He also filed an ASAP report and maybe a NASA form, I'm not sure.

Needless to say, the company self-reported the incident to the feds. He got a letter of investigation from the FAA and an 'informal' company ops hearing. ASAP said that since he signed the dispatch release and accepted the flight plan, it was a 'willful violation' and there was no immunity for the report. After a few stressful months, he and the FO were given a half day of remedial ground school with a couple of hours in the sim and the matter was closed.

My friend hasn't filed any of those reports since then.

timbob

14th Sep 2015, 19:50

If this aircraft was equipped with required HF radios, then I can understand crew confusion. Our airline operated 757's that were equipped domestic, over-water (non-ETOPS), and ETOPS....you had to watch out during last-minute equipment substitutions.

Landflap

15th Sep 2015, 07:24

Excellent post Airbubba. Focus again on how the holes in the cheese line-up. Mistakes by others all line-up and the Captain will get the final blame. Goes with the job I'm afraid. All others get a smack on the wrist but Boss Man can face dismissal. Tis why we get all this loot - eh ?

misd-agin

15th Sep 2015, 15:07

The Captain is not at risk. Everyone else let him down.
If anything they'll be going to his house asking him if he'd find it within himself to be kind enough to serve them tea and biscuits.

slowjet

16th Sep 2015, 08:50

misd-agin

16th Sep 2015, 13:33

The Captain is always at risk, until the facts are known and the correct assessment of responsibility is figured out. After that process, from everything that's known so far, in this case the Captain is not at fault. The natural reaction as a Captain is to say "how did he(Captain) do that?" With more information you can see how it happened. If anything it highlighted areas the union has complained about for the better part of a decade. It shouldn't have happened. Everyone agrees on that. It requires an internal assessment of how it happened and the corrective actions needed to prevent it from happening in the future.

autoflight

17th Sep 2015, 02:15

Somebody is the final legal decision maker. If there is information clearly not available to the captain and it would be unreasonable for captain to seek out the information under the circumstances, I think responsibility can lie elsewhere.

If captain should have reasonably sought applicable information re aircraft status, then responsibility is more obvious. The importance of the status would fine tune the eventual degree of captain responsibility.

Captain's first ETOPS flight should have had him on a heightened awareness. If the complete paper trail did not show ETOPS status for the particular aircraft for that flight, it would be very difficult to defend proceeding with the flight.

The decision making process is to justify proceeding, not to justify a decision to not proceed.

Chris2303

17th Sep 2015, 08:50

Would it be too hard to put a placard on the panel or the glareshield that says ETOPS?????

Gordomac

17th Sep 2015, 09:16

Mis'dAgain you do sound rather confused. First you say the Captain is not at risk then you say the Captain is "always" at risk. Gosh, glad you are not on the enquiry board ! With hindsight & the famous 20/20 vision it brings to those in the air-conditioned offices full authority to suggest : "Well, we can see what you did & why you did it...............but.............we can't condone it ". Easy stuff eh. It is rarely a set-up but after being dropped in the poo by support staff errors, a Captain left holding the can (as he will and should) can look behind him and find the support staff long gone ! Airbubba's excellent post gives some insight into just that. Cover your backs lads & don't expect much support if you get it wrong.

Uplinker

17th Sep 2015, 10:21

Chris2303 Would it be too hard to put a placard on the panel or the glareshield that says ETOPS?????

My thoughts entirely.

misd-agin

17th Sep 2015, 10:42

Gordomac - if you only quote a portion of the sentence the entire meaning changes. Nicely done.

I said the Captain is at risk...until the facts are known. Now that the facts are known he isn't at risk.

smala01

17th Sep 2015, 11:52

Can someone help me understand what is the material difference of an A320 that IS and IS NOT ETOPS certified?

Feathered

17th Sep 2015, 12:35

Of course the Captain is at risk. Always. HE is the final arbiter and is finally responsible for the safety of his aircraft, contents and crew. Misd-Agin, you need to re-read some of the other posts highlighting this fact. Sign and accept the mission, you enter the lonely world of command. A fearsome responsibility not widely appreciated. The Captain and the Dispatcher/Operator have joint responsibility for the safety of the flight. As a flight operated under 14 CFR 121, the Captain does not bear this responsibility alone.

Feathered

17th Sep 2015, 12:38

Can someone help me understand what is the material difference of an A320 that IS and IS NOT ETOPS certified? The ETOPS A320 has undergone ETOPS maintenance procedures, minimum equipment, and a certification process. The non ETOPS aircraft has not.

misd-agin

17th Sep 2015, 14:14

In this case -
Additional cargo fire suppression ability.
Additional crew O2 bottles.
Second HF.
Preflight vital signs physical.

DaveReidUK

17th Sep 2015, 16:02

Not forgetting those elusive external "ETOPS" markings that nobody seems to have been able to come up with any photos of.

Herod

17th Sep 2015, 16:23

Would it be too hard to put a placard on the panel or the glareshield that says ETOPS?????

Agree with Chris and Uplinker. Our aircraft used to have a placard for Cat 3, Cat 2 Autoland. It was changed by the engineer as appropriate. Hard to miss.

G-CPTN

17th Sep 2015, 16:49

The absence of an ETOPS sign wouldn't be conclusive - you cannot prove a negative (unless a check for such indication was part of a checklist).

Airbubba

17th Sep 2015, 19:08

The absence of an ETOPS sign wouldn't be conclusive - you cannot prove a negative (unless a check for such indication was part of a checklist).

I realize that corny folk sayings don't have to be logical. But 'you cannot prove a negative' is itself a negative statement, as in 'cannot', and if it were true, it would be unprovable, right? :=

ETOPS may be new on the AA A321 fleet but American has operated earlier ETOPS planes like B-767's and A306's for well over two decades I would say.

On the other hand, domestic and international (including overwater to HNL) operations are often like having two separate airlines within the same carrier.

A lot of the domestic folks never venture out over the water. And international folks like me are terrified when they takeoff and land without having to clear customs. ;)

So, the A321 crews may have had something like a day of fire hose ground school, a sim session and a line check as their total ETOPS training and experience.

And, American just completed merging operations with US Air so the paperwork may have been new even if the pilots had, say, flown the ETOPS B-762's or A330's out of CLT or PHL.

A lot of chances for an operational mistake, glad to hear the captain didn't get hanged for this one.

llondel

17th Sep 2015, 20:16

The absence of an ETOPS sign wouldn't be conclusive - you cannot prove a negative (unless a check for such indication was part of a checklist).

That just means the cockpit ETOPS sign is part of the MEL for the aircraft if the flight plan requires ETOPS. No sign, no go.

misd-agin

18th Sep 2015, 01:17

What sim session?? Not required.

ETOPS training flight? Not required.

Airbubba

18th Sep 2015, 03:01

What sim session?? Not required.

ETOPS training flight? Not required.

Uh, did they get a coloring book to do at home and a five question online test for ETOPS training?

At some places I'm told the training is indeed minimal.

procede

18th Sep 2015, 05:31

Uh, did they get a coloring book to do at home and a five question online test for ETOPS training?

At some places I'm told the training is indeed minimal.

Just a lesson on how to put on a diaper in case you have to fly on a single engine for three hours?

Gordomac

18th Sep 2015, 11:01

Misdagain : yes, thanks, and apologies. I see what you mean now. Never much good at English, that is why my first career choices were (1) Lawyer, (2)Politician. Also, never had the privilage of flying under FAA rules. In the UK, at the time, dispatchers were not licenced. All the support staff did their best and offered up a service from which the Captain made the final decisions and was held culpable.Unless these guys were ex mill, liked boats and had funny hand-shakes, in the UK, they would have been flamed !

bud leon

18th Sep 2015, 11:16

From a safety system perspective this kind of error simply should not happen. Maybe that's why so much media interest. It flies in the face of the attention to safety the industry purports.

As for fail-safe signage, firstly signage should not be the primary defence. Some kind of system lockout that prevents entering a flight plan that is inconsistent with the aircraft's certification is an obvious primary defence.

The most fail-safe signage system is to have signs indicating both ETOPS and NON-ETOPS using colour coding (can be black on white or white on black). No sign means pilot must regard the aircraft as NON-ETOPS and confirm. Although there should be a prior check which means an aircraft without a sign cannot go into service.

These things are not hard, they are safety 101.

Mr Magnetic

18th Sep 2015, 13:00

Spooky 2

18th Sep 2015, 14:00

Misd-Agin...

Simply not true. Suggest you read over AC120-42B and familiarize yourself with this AC. If you think the FAA will issue you OpSpecs for ETOPS without an approved training program you're mistaken. While it is true that the FTD can be used in lieu of a full flight sim, that is rarely done.

Also most if not all airlines use a check airman on at least the first two ETOPS legs. Who do you fly for that turn a crew lose on the N Atlantic for the first time without any line assist Remind me to avoid them in the future.

Bangkokian

18th Sep 2015, 19:00

Actually, bud leon's point makes the absolute most sense and there can be zero argument if you understand anything about systems design - which is hardly a field isolated to the airline industry. If you're operating a system with a clear constraint that costs a huge amount of money to build and operate then when you try to violate that clear constraint it should, at minimum, say, "Don't do that, here's why. Are you sure you want to do that?"

misd-agin

19th Sep 2015, 04:28

Spooky - it's spooky how you're getting ETOPS, NATS, and Hawaii qualification all mixed up.

Of course the training program is FAA approved. Who said it wasn't?

Could you find the section of the AC you refered to that requires a simulator session and two ETOPS legs with a CKA before you can fly to Hawaii and post it?

I just checked our ops spec and it doesn't exist. I also asked a CKA if a Hawaii ETOPS checkout was required. The answer he gave was no. But rather than just rely on his word I checked our FAA manual. The CKA was right, there are many ways to get the requirement waived.

Spooky 2

19th Sep 2015, 13:29

Well as the guys at Boeing Tech are fond of saying, "ETOPS is ETOPS is ETOPS".

I should have known the NAT thing would have confused you:) Regardless of what ocean or remote part of the world your operating over, ETOPS is basically the same be it 120, 180, or beyond. Freight operators have some leeway.

Like RVSM there is no one set of regs that covers all operations and thus a lot of it is left to the individual FAA POI's oversight. There is an Opspec for the NAT, CEP, NoPac, SoPac, Polar, AMU, along with an ETOPS OpSpec. The CEP is rather benign so maybe you're operation is slightly different, but I doubt it. Care to tell us what kind of operation that is, PAX, FRT?

misd-agin

19th Sep 2015, 15:29

We're talking about aircrew ETOPS certification. I'd guess that Boeing has little input into crew certification requirements. I've never heard MX differentiate ETOPS between different arenas. We just verify the sign-off.

I work for a small regional airline operating out of N. Texas. Fleet size is around 965 a/c.

Spooky 2

19th Sep 2015, 16:04

Well, if you actually work for American I guess you're part of the problem here:)

Actually Boeing, Airbus, ICAO EASA, JAA, FAA and few others have a lot to say about flight crew quals. Individual operators can make inputs to the final regulatory oversight and often do. I would guess that Boeing along with Airbus are the leaders in this arena.

I still remain doubtful regarding AA releasing a pilot for any International/ETOPS operations without the benefit of any further training. The fact that they can do this without a sim validation while possible speaks volumes about AA.

So are you also telling me that AA would launch the same crew on the N Atlantic under similar conditions or is that something else?

misd-agin

19th Sep 2015, 17:01

NATS is a higher qualification. That requires a 2 flight CKA checkout.
Hawaii is lower and doesn't require a specific checkout.

So the FAA approved program means you could do a MIA-SJU flight and you're now qualified into C. America, S. America(not mountain cities which are individual special qualification airports), the Caribbean and Hawaii.

Squawk7777

19th Sep 2015, 20:34

So the FAA approved program means you could do a MIA-SJU flight and you're now qualified into C. America, S. America(not mountain cities which are individual special qualification airports), the Caribbean and Hawaii.

South America and Hawaii are separate courses. You are NOT qualified on those routes if you only sit through a Latin America course (at least on the US Airways side).

Before the aircraft logbook format changed (due to the merger), it had a decal that stated the aircraft's restriction, e.g. 162NM, EOW, etc. Now, it only states Overwater Equipped which probably led to this cluster ...

Sadly, I have seen quite a bit of good LUS procedures disappear because they don't seem to meet the reAAL standard.

(silence is golden)

Airbubba

20th Sep 2015, 00:19

NATS is a higher qualification. That requires a 2 flight CKA checkout.
Hawaii is lower and doesn't require a specific checkout.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding but doesn't Hawaii involve ETOPS training which many domestic pilots wouldn't already have?

I can see where a NATS ETOPS course and check out would be good for Hawaii and the NOPAC at many carriers.

So the FAA approved program means you could do a MIA-SJU flight and you're now qualified into C. America, S. America(not mountain cities which are individual special qualification airports), the Caribbean and Hawaii.

Is MIA-SJU operated under a '75 minute benign area of operation' rule? Sorta like regular ETOPS but you don't need a special signoff on the return leg and you get MEL relief for the 'ER' required items?

misd-agin

20th Sep 2015, 02:39

Apples and oranges getting mixed together here. The ground school covers all arenas. ETOPS is covered. Hawaii is covered. Neither require a flight checkout. Cross reference chart, and CKA, both state that an ETOPS, or Hawaii flight, is not required before flying to Hawaii.

Without digging into manuals I think the logbooks have nothing(overland only), limited overwater(ie 162nm) or overwater.

We're using LUS procedures that leave us scratching our head so it cuts both ways.

Hawaii is ETOPS but the crew is not required to qualify (fly with CKA) into that division. NATS is ETOPS and requires a division checkout. No other division qualification allows the NATS qualification to be waived. Other division quals(ie NATS, Caribbean) do allow the Hawaii checkout to be waived.

MIA-SJU is not ETOPS. No ETOPS requirements. Without digging into the MEL I'd say the toughest MEL requirement ranking is - ETOPS/NATS, S. America, Caribbean and then domestic.

rottenray

20th Sep 2015, 03:50

So, did we ever figure out the answer to these two questions:

-- How that ship number was offered to the pilots of the flight to take

...and...

-- Why the pilots took it?

That's what we've been discussing, right?

peekay4

20th Sep 2015, 04:51

-- How that ship number was offered to the pilots of the flight to take

...and...

-- Why the pilots took it?

My guess:

There's an aircraft management system which picks which aircraft is to fly particular flights on particular routes, based on operational optimizations.

This system was not correctly configured with the list of eligible A321s for Hawaii, so it selected a non-ETOPS A321 by chance.

Holes in processes meant that this mistake was not caught by anyone (including dispatchers and pilots) until the flight was already in the air.

First thing to do is to correctly code which A321s are eligible for the route in the aircraft management system.

Second thing to do is to add procedural cross-checks to catch any mistakes.

Airbubba

20th Sep 2015, 05:56

Apples and oranges getting mixed together here. The ground school covers all arenas. ETOPS is covered. Hawaii is covered. Neither require a flight checkout. Cross reference chart, and CKA, both state that an ETOPS, or Hawaii flight, is not required before flying to Hawaii.

Thanks for the clarification, I appreciate it. :ok:

MIA-SJU is not ETOPS. No ETOPS requirements.

I'd almost bet the 75 minute benign area of ops is still buried somewhere in your OPSPEC's, it seems to be common among U.S. carriers for Caribbean operations. Most folks have never heard of it though. It is a legacy deviation from FAR 121.161 first issued in 1977 and is sometimes called 75 minute ETOPS.

procede

20th Sep 2015, 09:13

This system was not correctly configured with the list of eligible A321s for Hawaii, so it selected a non-ETOPS A321 by chance.

Or this aircraft was going to become ETOPS, but was not yet as it was too new?

misd-agin

20th Sep 2015, 16:52

Airbubba - "I'd almost bet the 75 minute benign area of ops is still buried somewhere in your OPSPEC's, it seems to be common among U.S. carriers for Caribbean operations. Most folks have never heard of it though. It is a legacy deviation from FAR 121.161 first issued in 1977 and is sometimes called 75 minute ETOPS."

You could be correct. I'm not an OpsSec expert. If I was aware of '75 minute ETOPS benign area of ops' in the past I've used fermented yeast as a catalyst to kill those brain cells.

Airbubba

20th Sep 2015, 17:00

If I was aware of '75 minute ETOPS benign area of ops' in the past I've used fermented yeast as a catalyst to kill those brain cells.

Like you, I've sure been in that 75 minute benign area of hops! ;)

bud leon

25th Sep 2015, 02:18

Surely there is no such thing as "the most failsafe"...

Something either fails safe or it doesn't.

If no ETOPS signage = no flight then any failure to provide the required signage would result in a safe condition, i.e. no flight!

Of course, the presence of signage alone could never ensure that any required human processes, such as checks and maintenance, had been completed. Which is why signage should only really be relied upon as an additional layer of protection.

Yes, you're are right actually. I should have typed "safest"

Signage can never be fail-safe.

In this case you should have a system of controls.

- Aircraft management system
- Human check - dispatcher
- Human check - pilot signage check
- Flight management system

taffyhammer

9th Jan 2024, 15:40

Don't American Airlines have a "Notice to crew" in their tech log? Should be entered in there if the aircraft was ETOPS capable!

swh

9th Jan 2024, 18:34

The ETOPS A320 has undergone ETOPS maintenance procedures, minimum equipment, and a certification process. The non ETOPS aircraft has not.

This is not true, the A320 as a type is certified to conduct ETOPS, every A320 built is capable of flying ETOPS. Some may or may not need additional customer options to be installed.

When you buy an A320 however, you simply cannot go out and start flying them ETOPS, you need to obtain APPROVAL from your regulator. Some operators fly A320 that are perfectly capable of flying ETOPS, however they choose not to have them approved to save some costs on maintenance.

The aircraft in question had no idea it was over water or over land.

This is an error on part of the scheduling and dispatch, there should be a process in place that prevents these aircraft being scheduled/dispatched for these flights. It’s too late when you have 200 pax waiting to get onboard to have wait for someone to do a walk around to notice something painted on the fuselage.

Personally there are better ways to do this, change the color of the tech log/ipad for ETOPS aircraft. One black, one orange, mechanics and pilots know the drill at a glance.

tdracer

9th Jan 2024, 19:50

.

Personally there are better ways to do this, change the color of the tech log/ipad for ETOPS aircraft. One black, one orange, mechanics and pilots know the drill at a glance.

I don't know how universal this is, but I've noticed that Delta has a rather prominent "ETOPS" painted large letters on the nose of the aircraft - forward of the nose gear. Readily observable during walkaround and by the ground crew prior to dispatch so long as they bother looking.

DaveReidUK

9th Jan 2024, 21:16

I don't know how universal this is, but I've noticed that Delta has a rather prominent "ETOPS" painted large letters on the nose of the aircraft - forward of the nose gear. Readily observable during walkaround and by the ground crew prior to dispatch so long as they bother looking.

Ditto United on the NLG door (see post #3).

Busbuoy

10th Jan 2024, 00:44

Second thing to do is to add procedural cross-checks to catch any mistakes.
And the first thing the bean counters in upper management will do is explain why this extra cost will make us uncompetitive (their favourite word for things that impact their bonus).

andrasz

10th Jan 2024, 16:44

Never having been an ETOPS operator, can someone explain what happens beyond the (convenient) PNR to suddenly make them realise they were non-ETOPS?
This question was lost in the noise, pity, because it is a VERY good question :E
Anyone ?

ATPMBA

10th Jan 2024, 16:59

Haven't flow commercial in a while but I thought I have seen on some carriers the word "ETOPS" on the nosewheel door?
If that's the case it should been caught on the pre-flight walk around.

Sorry, should of have read post #110.

DaveReidUK

10th Jan 2024, 18:47

Gordomac

12th Jan 2024, 08:37

Don't ever be fooled by what is written on the side of an aeroplane. ETOPS certified maybe. But ETOPS compliant,on the day, is something else.

Flt Dispatch will plan and ATC file for ETOPS if they know the aircraft is compliant. FD Crew will know during briefing that they are embarking upon ETOPS flt. Pilot doing the walk-round will gain some comfort that "ETOPS" is written on the side of the nosewheel gear doors. Yes, we DO notice.

On Board, Skip will read through the Tech log and ensure that the Min Eqpt List meets the spec for the ETOPS sector.

Quite a few potential holes in the cheese.

Muscat to Trivandrum, left the FD to chat up swiss chic (sorry, said that to annoy) ...........NW India, somewhere. GOt back and Cojo had turned the corner early and was proceeding direct, chopping off 50 minutes. I pointed out that for 10 minutes,halfway along, we were technically ETOPS. The aircraft had inop APU but otherwise an ETOPS aircraft. I turned back to planned airways with apology to ATC. Cojo bought t he Jack & Cokes.

.

Jump Complete

12th Jan 2024, 10:17

tdracer

12th Jan 2024, 19:23

I’m don’t have ETOPS experience so bear with me, but it would seem to me that the problem with having ETOPS painted on (EG, the nose wheel door) is that it’s still there if the aircraft becomes temporarily non-ETOPS compliant. Every airliner I’ve flown has had a coloured tag in the Captains eye-line stating CAT 1/2/3 etc so you have no excuse, even if you’ve missed the info in the Tech log, to attempt at CAT 2 or 3 approach in an aircraft that’s not capable. Surely an ETOPS / NON-ETOPS tag next to it would be the simplest and more or less fool proof solution?
Isn't it SOP to check the book for any MEL related items prior to dispatch - which would include if something made the aircraft non-ETOPS capable?
I sure hope that's SOP, because there are a lot of things on the MEL that would be far more important for the flight crew to know about prior to dispatch...

Jump Complete

12th Jan 2024, 19:40

Isn't it SOP to check the book for any MEL related items prior to dispatch - which would include if something made the aircraft non-ETOPS capable?
I sure hope that's SOP, because there are a lot of things on the MEL that would be far more important for the flight crew to know about prior to dispatch...
Absolutely! Just making the point that it’s an extra obvious check against snafus like a last minute aircraft change and something like this gets missed.

MichaelOLearyGenius

12th Jan 2024, 23:28

Well shouldn't they have Non ETOPS and ETOPS on the nose wheel door? The absence of anything could simply be missed by the walk around pilot.

JumpJumpJump

13th Jan 2024, 07:00

In fairness... this woukd be avoided if all aircraft were etops.....I'm sure an accountant is turning in his grave at the idea... alas... ffs

albatross

13th Jan 2024, 17:27

Joke:
Good Grief:
Perhaps a large brightly coloured retro-reflective decal in a prominent location on the panel not on the gear door. Prominent note in the logbook “ETOPS Check completed”.
I assume the aircrews will now CYA and, accompanied by legal councillors, start to ask the Dispatcher “Is this Aircraft ETOPS Complaint and is such fact noted on the dispatch paperwork?” While recording the exchange on their Iphone and streaming same.
Will a Notary Public have be present in order to stamp the paperwork as signed by at least 2 independent witnesses?
Joke over.

Squawk7777

13th Jan 2024, 22:49

Don't American Airlines have a "Notice to crew" in their tech log? Should be entered in there if the aircraft was ETOPS capable!
To answer your question, yes they do! BIG ETOPS sticker on the tech log and nose gear doors. At the same time I have to object to the OP statement that AA dispatched a non-ETOPS A321 to Hawai'i, they actually dispatched two! Within two days.

It was right around the USAirways/AA merger when the AA/DFW training department wouldn't take any input from "them inferior USAir folks", who actually had the 320 for almost twenty years at the time. When the 321 ETOPS model was introduced, senior USAir staff raised concern about the suggested ETOPS verification/check. This was brushed aside by the SUPERIOR AA masters, only to find out shortly after that their suggested method did not work. Instead of admitting their method was not foolproof, they told the FAA that this was a once-in-a-lifetime error due to new a/c (sub) type etc. What a shame that the very next day the same thing happened! The FAA then demanded the superior AA folks to adapt the suggestion brought by USAirways. Guess what happened ever since? Nothing! No incident, it worked. It just was not the method that Legacy AA introduced. The nerve!

Everything at AA is about AArogance. From the good old times crews walked "through these doors" in GSW, to the AA pilots union APA which sets records in giving away benefits and perks (because they weren't invented here), and bombard their members with long, convoluted emails how unfair life is etc. A senior check airman last year asked in a check airmen meeting why A320 procedures differ so much from the Airbus FCOM, only to be told by DH that "this is American Airlines". The only airline I assume that introduces "woke" procedures to their crews: fly Airbus the Boeing way and Boeing the Airbus way to satisfy "fleet harmonization". This urges me to ask pesky questions during my yearly recurrent training, but I don't ever want to send out CVs again, so I try to keep quiet, but I will wear my green lanyard!

punkalouver

14th Jan 2024, 23:03

Don't ever be fooled by what is written on the side of an aeroplane. ETOPS certified maybe. But ETOPS compliant, on the day, is something else.

Exactly. We could have the same aircraft be compliant on one flight but not on the next flight. It can depend on other items such as the maintenance performed(eg. each engine having oil service from a different technician). While the company is allowed to use all of its 777 on ETOPS flights, proof that the aircraft is ETOPS compliant is confirmed by the large E stamped in the logbook while there is no E in the logbook for the same aircraft on the shorter flights. No E in the logbook, no ETOPS allowed.

Squawk7777

15th Jan 2024, 02:23

Exactly. We could have the same aircraft be compliant on one flight but not on the next flight. It can depend on other items such as the maintenance performed(eg. each engine having oil service from a different technician). While the company is allowed to use all of its 777 on ETOPS flights, proof that the aircraft is ETOPS compliant is confirmed by the large E stamped in the logbook while there is no E in the logbook for the same aircraft on the shorter flights. No E in the logbook, no ETOPS allowed.

At AA there has to be a sign-off in the tech log that the ETOPS check has been completed. Should the airplane not be ETOPS compliant due to a MEL, a placard has to be posted in the tech log.