View Full Version : QF 787 to Santiago International Airport
f1yhigh
8th Aug 2019, 04:02
Qantas B787, starting June 2020. How about EDTO requirements?
Ollie Onion
8th Aug 2019, 04:39
Where is SCL?
ScepticalOptomist
8th Aug 2019, 04:41
SCL is the IATA code for Santiago International Airport
Snakecharma
8th Aug 2019, 04:50
LATAM do it now in a 787 so shouldn’t be a biggie I would have thought.
Rudder Sir
8th Aug 2019, 04:53
How about EDTO requirements?
Same as all the other 787s (or similar) between Auckland and South America?
TBM-Legend
8th Aug 2019, 05:41
I'd be quite confident that the boys and girls in QF ops would have thought about this before making announcements I guess some on here like to use big lines to attract attention>>
Pearly White
8th Aug 2019, 06:03
LATAM Flight SCL-MEL, for example: https://uk.flightaware.com/live/flight/LAN805/history/20180604/1640Z/SCEL/YMML
Ollie Onion
8th Aug 2019, 06:08
Don’t the Qantas 787’s have 330min ETOPS anyway.
Starting June 2020!!...... Was hoping they were starting Sep 2019, that would have got me out of the two I have to do next roster!
Troo believer
8th Aug 2019, 07:27
QF 787's got 240min ETOPS at entry to service, I don't believe thats changed.
it’s capable of 330 with 345 fire suppression
mrdeux
8th Aug 2019, 09:11
Self certified by Boeing?
Ken Borough
8th Aug 2019, 09:27
SYD/SCL on two? Thanks, but no thanks!
High_To_Low
8th Aug 2019, 10:22
So where does this leave the SYD-JNB route from 2021?
Going Boeing
8th Aug 2019, 10:24
SYD/SCL on two? Thanks, but no thanks!
I used to think like that but, when flying along the coast of Antartica, I realised that fire was a bigger threat than an engine failure. The B787 has almost twice the cargo fire suppression compared with the B747ER so, in some ways, it will be a safer operation. Also, the fuel doesn’t get as cold in the B787 wings, due to the thermal properties of Carbon Fibre.
The announcement indicates a daily service so there won’t be any excessively long slips in SCL. CASA approval of 330 minutes is currently being processed and will be available before June 2020.
It also means there are not enough hulls to replace the B747 on JNB & HND routes - maybe there are more on order that we haven’t been told about.
dragon man
8th Aug 2019, 10:37
JNB and HND were to be the 380 however the Japanese have told Qantas it can’t go to Haneda. Nobody seems to know what plan B is.
Capt Fathom
8th Aug 2019, 11:00
So you are at 65south and the Cargo Fire Warning goes off. Where is the nearest runway?
Airbus, Boeing, 2 or 4 engines. Same applies!
Beer Baron
8th Aug 2019, 11:35
SYD/SCL on two? Thanks, but no thanks!
So how many times in the last 20 years has a 4 engined aircraft lost two engines but been saved by the fact that it’s a quad?
kiwi grey
8th Aug 2019, 23:36
LATAM Flight SCL-MEL, for example: https://uk.flightaware.com/live/flight/LAN805/history/20180604/1640Z/SCEL/YMML
Jeepers, that's a l-o-n-g way south :uhoh:
kiwi grey
8th Aug 2019, 23:57
So you are at 65south and the Cargo Fire Warning goes off. Where is the nearest runway?
Airbus, Boeing, 2 or 4 engines. Same applies!
Maybe Rothera Air Facility (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rothera_Air_Facility) here: https://www.google.com/maps/place/67%C2%B034'04.0%22S+68%C2%B007'38.6%22W/@-67.567926,-68.1199139,2232m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d-67.567778!4d-68.127389?hl=en
Enough room to get in, but not out?
Blueskymine
9th Aug 2019, 00:00
Maybe Rothera Air Facility (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rothera_Air_Facility) here: https://www.google.com/maps/place/67%C2%B034'04.0%22S+68%C2%B007'38.6%22W/@-67.567926,-68.1199139,2232m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d-67.567778!4d-68.127389?hl=en
Enough room to get in, but not out?
Yep, land there on fire. Then a couple of hundred suffering hypothermia.
At least there’d be a reasonable sized bonfire on the runway to keep everyone toasty. For a time.
compressor stall
9th Aug 2019, 01:22
Maybe Rothera Air Facility (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rothera_Air_Facility) here: https://www.google.com/maps/place/67%C2%B034'04.0%22S+68%C2%B007'38.6%22W/@-67.567926,-68.1199139,2232m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d-67.567778!4d-68.127389?hl=en
Enough room to get in, but not out?
Last time I looked Rothera was a bit over 800m with water at each end. And that's when it's not buried. Good Luck with that.
Rated De
9th Aug 2019, 08:57
So you are at 65south and the Cargo Fire Warning goes off. Where is the nearest runway?
Airbus, Boeing, 2 or 4 engines. Same applies!
Captain, introducing practicality into the discussion will not be welcomed.
Fortunately, as the erudite here announce, as it hasn't happened, one can rest assured it won't.
‘In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, while in practice there is’
-Benjamin Brewster 1882
Assuming something won't happen because it is yet to happen is hubris.
Asturias56
9th Aug 2019, 08:59
I thought the argument about 2 v 4 engines on long over-water flights was finished 30 years ago - but not in Australia it seems...................
I thought the argument about 2 v 4 engines on long over-water flights was finished 30 years ago - but not in Australia it seems...................
In Australia, our ponds are larger:)
BB:
So how many times in the last 20 years has a 4 engined aircraft lost two engines but been saved by the fact that it’s a quad?
How many times in the last 20 years has a quad lost ONE engine but been saved by the fact it’s a quad? And then there’s the Kegwort style incidents. Semantics, twins have less failures because they HAVE to:)
Beer Baron
9th Aug 2019, 10:21
Assuming something won't happen because it is yet to happen is hubris.
HA!
From the man obsessed with undertaking a ‘longitudinal study’ before launching any new route.
How many times in the last 20 years has a quad lost ONE engine but been saved by the fact it’s a quad?
Not sure what you’re driving at there V-jet? Given a twin is not doomed if it only loses 1 engine, the real threat is losing 2. So how often in the modern age does this happen?
Ummm - Kegworth type incidents?
When in doubt, I would ALWAYS err on the side of a bigger hammer. An earthmoving mate gave me exceptionally good advice which does have some significance around 65S. ‘Always use the biggest machine you can - it works out better in the long run’ And at 65+S, it’s ALWAYS a long run!
compressor stall
9th Aug 2019, 12:34
. ‘Always use the biggest machine you can - it works out better in the long run’ And at 65+S, it’s ALWAYS a long run!
If it makes you happy, so be it.
But others may find comfort in more modern aircraft built to later certification standards and more upgraded systems and operated to stricter requirements
If it makes you happy, so be it.
But others may find comfort in more modern aircraft built to later certification standards and more upgraded systems.
Siple Island is lovely this time of year. McMurdo even better - they have accomodation (for scientists) although there is nothing currently available on Airbnb....
Of course, I’m totally ignoring the fact that ‘modern’ jets never break down or need maintenance.
compressor stall
9th Aug 2019, 12:59
Of course, I’m totally ignoring the fact that ‘modern’ jets never break down or need maintenance.
No but non quads don't operate under grandfathered ETOPS exemptions.
Siple Island is lovely this time of year. McMurdo even better - they have accomodation (for scientists) although there is nothing currently available on Airbnb....
Of course, I’m totally ignoring the fact that ‘modern’ jets never break down or need maintenance.
Maybe it might be best if you retire with your trusty quad and 1970’s thinking