Airnorth to Kupang

[Dog One]

Both Jakarta Post and ABC news radio announced this morning that Airnorth are commencing bi-weekly services to Kupang in June using EMB120 aircraft.

From memory Merpati use to run an ancient 737 a few years ago, but loadings were pretty poor. The smaller capacity of the Brasilia should make the route a another winner for Airnorth.

[Sheep Guts]

Merparti used to fly to Ambon aswell, in an F28 and also 737. I suppose with the continual Masacres and unprising there, that route wont return in the Distant future.
I suppose Kugang will be a Triangle with Dilli Flights or are they just doing Kuppang -DRW and DRW- Dilli individually.

Hows AirNorth doing with baggage on this route to Dilli, 400nm, would have though maybe some bags would have to stay.


Sheep

[RENURPP]

I would be supprised if they could do Darwin - Kupang direct, from memory its about 450nm, over water, what would be within 60mins single engine ??? Have to make a big dog leg to adhere to the 60 min or via dili.

[Sheep Guts]

Whats with the 60 mins Single Engine? What happens to slower machines like B1900 and King Airs etc on the Dilli route RENURP?


If you have the CAO reference for the 60 mins, I better read it again

Sheep

[Capt Claret]

Sheep Guts

60 mins single engine used to be covered in CAO 20.7.1b, Route Distance Limitations. For reasons not known to me, these RDL have been removed to CAO 82.0, the pertinent sections, as well as the definition of extended range operation are reproduced below.

from CAO 82.0, section 2, Interpretation

extended range operation in relation to an aeroplane with two engines, means an operation to a distance in excess of 60 minutes flight time from an adequate aerodrome calculated at single engine cruise speed.

from CAO 82.0, section 3B, CONDITIONS FOR ROUTE DISTANCE LIMITATIONS

Extended range operations in twin-engined aeroplanes certificated for more than 19 passengers

3B.7 Subject to paragraph 3B.8, each certificate authorising passenger carrying charter or regular transport operations in a twin-engined aeroplane that is of a type certificated for more than 19 passengers is subject to the condition that the aeroplane must not be operated on an extended range operation, when carrying passengers, without the written approval of CASA for that specific operation.

3B.8 Paragraph 3B.7 does not apply to an aircraft of a type first registered in Australia on or before 28 October 1985 and operated by the same operator as on 30 November 1989, that is to be operated on a route where the flight time to an adequate aerodrome does not exceed:

(a) 90 minutes at normal cruise speed when all operations are within the Australian Flight Information Regions;

(b) 90 minutes at normal cruise speed on routes outside the Australian Flight Information Regions that were approved for the aeroplane type before 28 October 1985; and

(c) 60 minutes at single engine cruise speed in all other cases.

Note: CASA may approve operations on routes outside the Australian Flight Information Regions that were not approved before 28 October 1985 provided that a history of safe operations on a similar route can be demonstrated.

Approval of specific extended range operation to follow airworthiness assessment and safety operational specification

3B.9 For the purposes of paragraph 3B.7, CASA may approve, in writing, specific extended range operations for a twin-engined aeroplane provided that:

(a) the operator has given CASA the documents that the operator is required to provide under Appendix 3 to enable an airworthiness assessment to be carried out; and

(b) following the conduct of an airworthiness assessment in accordance with Appendix 3, CASA is satisfied that the operator is able safely to conduct and maintain those operations; and

(c) the maximum operating time in still air to an adequate aerodrome is included in a safety operational specification made under the authority of subsection 4; and

(d) the maximum specified operating time does not exceed that for which airworthiness approval has been granted under Appendix 3; and

(e) any conditions prescribed in the safety operational specification referred to in subparagraph (c) are complied with.

Cruise speed must be specified in operations manual

I would imagine that in Australia, for most twin engined turboprop operators, para 3B.8, sub para C will be the limitation, that is, 60 minutes at single engine cruise speed (from an adequate aerodrome).

[VH-VIN]

Sheep Guts, B1900D slower than a Braz, I dont think so.

[RENURPP]

Thanks Clarrett, have been working of sorts.

[welcome_stranger]

From the International Directory of Civil Aircraft (the working mans Jane's)


Raytheon Beechcraft 1900D

Max cruising speed 288kt (533km/h)


Embraer EMB-120 Brasilia

Max cruising speed 300kt (555km/h) with PW118s or 310kt (574km/h) with PW118As

Embraer EMB-120ER Brasilia

Max cruising speed 300kt (555km/h) with PW118s or 313kt (580km/h) with PW118As

So the Brasilia wins by 12 to 22 (25 for the ER) kts.

Also the Brasilia carries 30 pax compared to the 1900D's 19 pax.

Range for the 1900D with 10pax and reserves at l-r cruise power is 1,476nm whilst the E120 with max fuel and 20pax (3935lb payload) does 1,629nm (or 1,570nm for the ER)

So the E-120 is faster carries twice the passenger load over the same distance and is, more importantly, much prettier than the 1900D.

[Sheep Guts]

Thanks Claret,
That seemed to clear things up. I suppose the Dilli route and Kupang routes were approved before 1985, if not then I would suggest AirNorth will get a special approval. What is the single engine cruise for a Bras anyway at say FL180? Anyone out got answer to that one?

VH-VIN what can I say? Dont worry I am a stalwart King Air and Beech man too but statistics is statistics Thanks Welcome Stranger.


Sheep

[RENURPP]

Sheep guts

I don't think it has anything to do with the routes being approved it all relates to the aircraft. 1985. No E120's in Aus 1985 I don't think.

I think it is more likely that Dili just falls within the 60mins as it does for the dash 8, and that Kupang will require a dog leg to keep within 1 hrs flight time S/E of an adequate aerodrome.

[VH-VIN]

May be Air North have ETOPS approval for the Braz?

[slice]

Airnorth! ETOPS! Not bluddy likely unless something drastic has changed there in the past couple of years. In years gone by there have been several highly questionable 'operational' decisions that have come to the attention of CASA. My point is that ETOPS approval requires an organizational discipline (viz DJ Maint admin issue) that Airnorth has never come within a bulls roar of acheiving. Now this is going back a couple of years, so if someone has information to the contrary I am all ears, but this little black duck is going to take some convincing!

[Chocks Away]

No ETOPs required.
60 minute rule can be met by tracking as per Dili flight plan (dogleg) via "Ikuma", using Dili as your Alt.
Tracking this dogleg to KPG is only 9nm more than the direct DN-KPG track but the dogleg leaves you in reach of Dili.
PNRs and CPs (Wx and Winds) play a major part of course, on such routes with such an aircraft.

[Dog One]

Slice

I guess Airnorth must be doing something right , as far as CASA are concerned, because they are approved not to carry life rafts on the Dili and Bali routes! That approval went before Parliament last year and was granted.

As for the 1900 vs the E120 - no contest eh, quite often hear the GWA 1900 get beaten on the short sector to Port Lincoln.

[RENURPP]

Dog One

There is a difference between getting approvals and doing something right, escpecially when politicians are involved.

Hows the Broome Kunnunurra flights going. I would suspect that Skywest and QLINK operating over this route would make the E120 a very unattractive and expensive option.

[Will Robinson]

Bras@Fl180 single engine tas is 180kts fuel burn 700lbs/h

[topend3]

skywest don't fly broome-kununurra, they go bme-drw direct, and qflink fly per-knx once weekly which began on may 1.

[4dogs]

Folks,

This life raft business is a bit of a regulatory joke - if Air North, SkyWest and Alliance can be granted exemptions from what are essentially ICAO requirements simply because it is commercially convenient, why don't CASA just drop all requirements for life jackets and life rafts?

If CASA is prepared to almost triple the compliance distance of the SkyWest aeroplane from 120 nm to 345 nm, shouldn't that mean that I can have my 747 extended from 400 nm to at least 1150 nm?

Surely CASA have created a competitive advantage for those organisations that do not have to give up seats for life raft stowage or purchase and maintain the rafts. Isn't that counter to the concept of one rule for all?

Stay Alive,

[skylane]

Understand that when the new CASR's are introduced, the requirement for life rafts will be increased from 100 nm to 400. I would guess that CASA gave the exemption to those operators that applied on that basis.

[D'pirate]

My understanding is that the ICAO regs are 400 nm from land or one hour at single engine cruise from an adequate aerodrome and that the CASRs will reflect that, that is why CASA is being flexible.