QF14 Buenos Aires to Darwin

[Nuasea]

Just wondering what the furthest the 787 was from a diversion during the flight. As a government sponsored repatriation flight, did standard ETOPS apply.

[ACMS]

Yes it was a commercial flight as they sold seats on it.
QF 787’s have 330 min ETOPS, they didn't follow the great circle track exactly as they needed to 1/ stay within 330 mins and 2/ also avoid the head winds….

[lucille]

330 minutes ETOPS? Five and half hours on one engine across inhospitable terrain. It’s a sobering thought.

[Capt Fathom]

5 ½ hours to the nearest airport. Great if you are on fire!

But you can always put the aircraft down somewhere. Oh, that’s right… Antarctica.

Someone will be along soon!

I can’t believe flights over such remote areas can be approved by any sane authority.

[Flingwing47]

I reckon many would agree with you Capt Fathom.
good old CASA insist on the MOS covering alternates, both enroute and off route, and ETPs and PNRs the same. And yet a light twin can plan 5.5 hours OEI
Brave dispatching by QF too

[Sir HC]

Probably the most technologically advanced mass produced aircraft ever built, reliable beyond belief.

How typically Boomer Australian of you to find the negatives in something and ask CASA for more overreach.

[Checkboard]

Which shows how little the general people on here understand regulation and certification, really.

[lucille]

Probably the most technologically advanced mass produced aircraft ever built, reliable beyond belief.

How typically Boomer Australian of you to find the negatives in something and ask CASA for more overreach.

After that jibe , I simply couldn’t resist Googling. Amazing the the things you learn, hey?

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/rolls-royces-troubled-boeing-787-engine-in-new-safety-alert-over-cracks/


Out of curiosity, does anyone know what S.E. TAS that QF uses in calculating ETPs? Asking for a friend.😜

[Squawk7700]

Probably the most technologically advanced mass produced aircraft ever built, reliable beyond belief.

How typically Boomer Australian of you to find the negatives in something and ask CASA for more overreach.

They probably said that about the A380 and I’m thinking QF32.

You don’t have to be an old man to realise that it’s all good, until something goes wrong.

[Sir HC]

They probably said that about the A380 and I’m thinking QF32.

You don’t have to be an old man to realise that it’s all good, until something goes wrong.

From Wikipedia: Up to March 2016, it has a dispatch reliability (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependability) of 99.9 percent and four in-flight shutdown (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbine_engine_failure) (IFSD) gave a rate of 2 IFSD per million flight hours.[48] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_Trent_1000#cite_note-48)

Pretty good odds to me. I personally would feel safer in a 787 that loses an engine over Antarctica than in any DC-3 in the 60's. Even your ridiculous QF32 example resulted in how many fatalities?

[Squawk7700]

From Wikipedia: Up to March 2016, it has a dispatch reliability (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependability) of 99.9 percent and four in-flight shutdown (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbine_engine_failure) (IFSD) gave a rate of 2 IFSD per million flight hours.[48] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_Trent_1000#cite_note-48)

Pretty good odds to me. I personally would feel safer in a 787 that loses an engine over Antarctica than in any DC-3 in the 60's. Even your ridiculous QF32 example resulted in how many fatalities?

Ridiculous?

Do you realise how close they came to losing all souls on board? A lesser experienced pilot would not have ended up with the same result.

99.9% means nothing when your family members are onboard and there’s a flameout over Antartica.

[compressor stall]

Ridiculous?

Do you realise how close they came to losing all souls on board? A lesser experienced pilot would not have ended up with the same result.
.
out of respect for the others on the flight deck too humble to go on speaking circuits … you should replace “pilot” with “crew”.

And the same observation of lesser experience can be made of any incident / near accident / accident.

[Sir HC]

Ridiculous?

Do you realise how close they came to losing all souls on board? A lesser experienced pilot would not have ended up with the same result.

99.9% means nothing when your family members are onboard and there’s a flameout over Antartica.

Per the IFSD numbers, the probability of a 'flameout' over Antarctica (or anywhere enroute) would be in the order of 0.0002%. It's basically a certainty that the second engine would get my family to Melbourne/Hobart safely.

We obviously approach risk differently but I'd encourage you to keep emotion out of your decision making.

[morno]

Per the IFSD numbers, the probability of a 'flameout' over Antarctica (or anywhere enroute) would be in the order of 0.0002%. It's basically a certainty that the second engine would get my family to Melbourne/Hobart safely.

We obviously approach risk differently but I'd encourage you to keep emotion out of your decision making.

What he said.

But far out, what a flight. Too long for me thanks :eek:

[tdracer]

They probably said that about the A380 and I’m thinking QF32.

Ironic that you'd bring up the A380 and QF32 when talking ETOPS. I'm reasonably sure the A380 has four engines and as noted, that really didn't help.
A big part of the statistical argument for ETOPS is that - given today's engine reliability - having more than two engines doesn't improve safety because more engines means a greater probability of a catastrophic engine failure that endangers continued safe flight and landing (e.g. uncontained failure or uncontrollable fire). QF32 was a result of an uncontained engine failure - and since it has four engines it's twice as likely to experience an uncontained engine failure than a big twin.

[megan]

There is always an outlier, 777 about to reach TOD into Honolulu, had the fan blade penetrated the fuselage resulting in a decompression they would have been facing a ditching, fortunately it hit a stringer which prevented penetration. Had it happened at a ETOPS, once again a ditching.

Interview with the Captain.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7_lzeY23dI

NTSB report.

https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/api/Aviation/ReportMain/GenerateNewestReport/96738/pdf

[tartare]

Good on them I say.
I always used to wonder when I was at NZ about AKL - LHR non-stop.
Straight up the meridian and over the top. :E
Now that would be a flight.

[RAD_ALT_ALIVE]

Megan,
Can you let us know why you think a depressurisation would definitely result in a ditching (whether ETOPS or not)?

Every flightplan has to take into account the worst case fuel scenario of normal cruise/OEI/OEI depressurised (if more critical than AEO depressurised) and use the most critical scenario as the minimum fuel uplift. So if there is a depressurisation, with or without an engine failure, right at the 5.5 hour point, then the aircraft will have enough fuel to make its ETOPS adequate airport.

So if fuel is no issue, what then is the reason behind your assertion?

Even the NTSB classified the damage to this B777 as 'light', so it can't be due to catastrophic damage - and a hole in the fuselage caused by an errant fan blade isn't necessarily going to bring down the aircraft (see UA811 where the entire forward cargo door came off, but it still landed safely).

Capt Fathom,

What would a B744 crew have had as choices if they were to suffer an uncontrollable fire at the CP between SYD and JNB, or EZE? No different to the modern twins really, is it?

[megan]

Watch the video, all is explained.

[Ascend Charlie]

Wonder how the Flat Earthers rationalise this flight taking only 15 hours and going via Antarctica?

[Capt Fathom]

Capt Fathom,
What would a B744 crew have had as choices if they were to suffer an uncontrollable fire at the CP between SYD and JNB, or EZE? No different to the modern twins really, is it?

All Extended Range operations in remote locations face the same issues. Where can I land if it goes bad. And when things go bad, they rarely go bad as per the book! :}

[aroa]

Can anyone post a route map of such a flight? Would be interested to see the track, way
Points and etc.
Dodging the speedy westerlies would need some shifting about, no doubt
sure is a lot of water out there.!

[megan]

Great Circle


https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/784x486/ci_1ce8da88c419458774bb6be4cf27eea9a4fd4af0.png
A map with the 330 ETOPS drawn on, picked 402 kt for speed as I don't know a realistic figure.

A map from Great Circle Mapper - Great Circle Mapper (http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=EZE-DRW&MS=wls&DU=mi&E=330&EV=402&EU=kts)

Flight Aware

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/QFA14

[Capt Fathom]

Can anyone post a route map of such a flight?

Go to Flight Aware or Flight Radar 24 and search for QFA14

[Squawk7700]

out of respect for the others on the flight deck too humble to go on speaking circuits … you should replace “pilot” with “crew”.

And the same observation of lesser experience can be made of any incident / near accident / accident.

True...

(making up the remaining characters)

[Squawk7700]

Per the IFSD numbers, the probability of a 'flameout' over Antarctica (or anywhere enroute) would be in the order of 0.0002%. It's basically a certainty that the second engine would get my family to Melbourne/Hobart safely.

We obviously approach risk differently but I'd encourage you to keep emotion out of your decision making.

So it's not zero.
Your approach to risk appears to be similar a bean counter or a commander at war.

[DuncanDoenitz]

Wonder how the Flat Earthers rationalise this flight taking only 15 hours and going via Antarctica?
As it happens, I've also been following The Flat Earth Society forum for a couple of years. (TFES.org: I urge you to take a look, its brilliant).

The usual response by the Flatties (to things like the some-time Qantas/LATAM scheduled flights between Santiago and Melbourne) is a combination of;

1. The flight never took place; NASA and other global-conspirators fiddling the books on FR24 etc.
2. "Yes, but you can't actually book a flight, or if you do it gets mysteriously cancelled or diverted via LAX".
3. In-flight refuelling somewhere over Siberia.
4. Anomalous southern supersonic jetstreams, (Somehow always favouring the direction of flight).

On this occasion, because the flight was so well followed on FR24, Twitter and, well, reality, they've just completely ignored it.

[mustafagander]

The flights over Antarctica have always been "interesting" for we operators of said services. On the B744 we had as diversion ports Christchurch or Punta Arenas. It got out to 3h55 diversion time. The near impossibility of a good outcome at Punta Arenas is for another thread. As has been pointed out, number of engines is irrelevant.
Now think about a cabin fire. It is well known that with a real fire you will be on the ground in about 15 minutes - in pieces or after a forced landing. The advice for flights over the deep south is to fly north until you have to ditch. Simply put, you lose the airframe and all POB coz the best ditching in the world just means that you die shortly after. The Southern Ocean sea temps are around 12*C so you quickly die of exposure. Great food for thought for us operators. A failing gasper fan actually caused smoke in the cockpit on one of those trips about 75*S. Luckily it stopped smoking after the checklist procedures, roughly 8 minutes. Severe damage to the undies of the 4 pilots!!!
I always enjoyed the technical challenge of the operation SYD-EZE-SYD but wasn't too keen to stay in Buenos Aires. Terrible place for a crew slip.

[Sober Lark]

Flight time 17 hours 41 mins. Departed on time, arrived 6 mins early. wow

[aroa]

Thanks for that Megan. Wow. One might get a look at Antartica but not feel how cold it is. Thankfully ….for reliable engines. No survival suits for anyone no doubt.

[Capt Fathom]

There is a bit more here from flightradar24 (https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/qantas-performs-longest-ever-commercial-flight/?utm_source=sendgrid.com&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=website) that shows the actual flight path vs the great circle route.

[tdracer]

So it's not zero.
Your approach to risk appears to be similar a bean counter or a commander at war.
Nothing, absolutely nothing in life is zero risk. Aviation is no different. All we can do is minimize the risks. The risk of a dual engine shutdown on a long ETOPS flight is not zero, but it's pretty damn low - as in less than 1 in 1 billion. Not coincidentally, less than "one in a billion" is what we used to determine 'safety' in aviation since it's not physically possible to make the risk of a catastrophic outcome zero.
If you're not OK with a one in a billion chance of not making it, you'd better not fly. The whole system is built around that - not just ETOPS.

[morno]

So it's not zero.
Your approach to risk appears to be similar a bean counter or a commander at war.

Are you telling me there are things that are zero risk? :D:ugh:

Far out, if those odds aren’t good enough for you, then maybe go hide in a padded room and never set foot outside again. You’ve probably got more chance of being hit by a meteorite walking down the street.

[megan]

Are you telling me there are things that are zero riskSure there is, lying in a coffin with six feet of dirt on top sealing you in, nothing can touch you.

[Squawk7700]

It’s all about the Swiss cheese. When things go wrong it’s often not just a standard statistical “engine failure” and of course the likelihood of both is low, so it’s more about what the one engine takes with it when it goes.

[SASKATOON9999]

I have no phobia with ETOPs - But to further extenuate the fears of those who do, its worth remembering the 180/230/330 min rule is also based on still air - Thus the reality could be a far longer diversion still !

[Sidestick_n_Rudder]

I have no phobia with ETOPs - But to further extenuate the fears of those who do, its worth remembering the 180/230/330 min rule is also based on still air - Thus the reality could be a far longer diversion still !

I'm no expert on ETOPS, but I seem to remember that maximum diversion times above 180min (ie, 207, 330 etc) are based on actual winds, whereas the "traditional" ETOPS (up to 180) is based on still air.

[JRK]

While it would not be a standard landing and risk of hull damage would be probably be significant, there are some bases around Antarctica with air strips, which regularly receive types such as IL76 (heavy), B737 and even G650. Some basis on South American side also receive C130s on regular basis.

Again, not saying it would be an SOP type of event, but in case all hell breaks loose and the crew is left with no options, this could very well be the last resort.

[megan]

so it’s more about what the one engine takes with it when it goesAs with the Honolulu 777 video I posted. With full power on the good engine they were unable to arrest the descent, had they been further out than TOD it would have resulted in a ditching. When it rolled to 45° after it spat the fan blade he had difficulty controlling the roll, I thought his thought of continuing the roll for the other 315° would have been a good war story for the pax to tell at a dinner party, 777 with a full load would put "Tex" Johnsons -80 effort in the shade.

[OldLurker]

Ironic that you'd bring up the A380 and QF32 when talking ETOPS. I'm reasonably sure the A380 has four engines and as noted, that really didn't help.
A big part of the statistical argument for ETOPS is that - given today's engine reliability - having more than two engines doesn't improve safety because more engines means a greater probability of a catastrophic engine failure that endangers continued safe flight and landing (e.g. uncontained failure or uncontrollable fire). QF32 was a result of an uncontained engine failure - and since it has four engines it's twice as likely to experience an uncontained engine failure than a big twin.ISTR that a 747 out of LAX or SFO (I forget which), destination LHR, lost an engine on takeoff and, with plenty of options in North America before they committed to the pond, the crew elected to continue rather than hang about dumping fuel and land back. In a twin they wouldn't have dared, or been permitted, to do that. They could have made it to LHR but precautionally chose MAN - the right country, at least. (Afterwards, some other 747 drivers admitted to have done much the same thing.)

[Checkboard]

I'm no expert on ETOPS, but I seem to remember that maximum diversion times above 180min (ie, 207, 330 etc) are based on actual winds, whereas the "traditional" ETOPS (up to 180) is based on still air.
No. :) And for a simple reason - the time is arbritary in terms of safety (i.e. ten minutes here or there doesn't affect the safety case), and the point of each of the limits is to open up specific over water routes. That's why it's "still air" - so that you can draw a circle on the map, and approve the route. If that circle had to change with wind, then you'd have to cancel sheduled flights based on the changing wind each day, which would be a commercial nightmare. So, no, it's always a line on the ground, a still wind calculation.

Of course, planning the flight on the day, you have to account for wind for the fuel uplift - so you have to calculate your single engine burn from the Single Engine Critical Point using the Single Engine cruise speed and fuel flow you used to get the approval and the actual wind for the flight on the day... but that doesn't affect the approval of the route.

ISTR that a 747 out of LAX or SFO (I forget which), destination LHR, lost an engine on takeoff and, with plenty of options in North America before they committed to the pond, the crew elected to continue rather than hang about dumping fuel and land back.
Which is perfectly reasonable (and one of the justifications for four engines) - once you lose an engine, you are now a three engine aircraft. You are still subject ot the same rules to continue - if you lose one engine (the critical one) you must be able to, at any point on the route, divert to an acceptable airport without running out of fuel or descending into a mountain. So, if you lose one in a four engine aircraft you run the numbers for losing the other one on the same side and check your two engine ceiling against the lowest safe altitude, and the work out the two engine Critical Point for the route and work out the two engine fuel burn to your acceptable alternate. If both of those calculations are still good (and they normally are - the limiting thing is take off performance, and you are generally already airborne) then you are legally OK to continue.

[ScepticalOptomist]

I always enjoyed the technical challenge of the operation SYD-EZE-SYD but wasn't too keen to stay in Buenos Aires. Terrible place for a crew slip.

Couldn’t disagree more! The 5 day slips there were some of the best trips I did! Great people, food, and wine.

[mustafagander]

Sceptical,
We'll just have to disagree then. The petty crime there, pickpockets, muggers etc was out of control. The currency was totally debased and most banknotes were counterfeit. The footpaths were all broken up and you risked getting hurt if you didn't watch your footing carefully.
You're right about the people, food and wine though. Some very gorgeous, friendly women there!! The Malbec wines from Mendoza are great, I still buy them here in Oz.

[ScepticalOptomist]

Sceptical,
We'll just have to disagree then. The petty crime there, pickpockets, muggers etc was out of control. The currency was totally debased and most banknotes were counterfeit. The footpaths were all broken up and you risked getting hurt if you didn't watch your footing carefully.
You're right about the people, food and wine though. Some very gorgeous, friendly women there!! The Malbec wines from Mendoza are great, I still buy them here in Oz.

I must have stopped going there before that was the case. I do remember being issued US dollars in smaller denominations after some had trouble changing the $100 & $50.. perhaps it’s nostalgia clouding my memories but I have very fond memories of the slips there. Perhaps the wine and the friendly locals masked everything else for me. :)