ETOPS and the ETP
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 258
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dutch
Interesting:
"In QF rules and regulations at least, it is stated crystal clearly that there is no requirement to land at the nearest adequate (i.e., a cat C) airport in the event of a critical systems failure."
I assume then that QF require a diversion to the nearest suitable airport in event of a major technical problem? How do QF differentiate between the two?
Interesting:
"In QF rules and regulations at least, it is stated crystal clearly that there is no requirement to land at the nearest adequate (i.e., a cat C) airport in the event of a critical systems failure."
I assume then that QF require a diversion to the nearest suitable airport in event of a major technical problem? How do QF differentiate between the two?
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by AnQrKa
I assume then that QF require a diversion to the nearest suitable airport in event of a major technical problem? How do QF differentiate between the two?
A "suitable airport" is a Cat A or B airport which doesn't require an alternate, or for which the appropriate holding fuel is carried.
A Cat C airport (these are obviously different for various different aircraft types) cannot be a "suitable" airport. Thus Majuro can never be used as a "suitable" airport for diversion (for an A330).
Essentially by defining it this way, QF have said "yeah you could conceivably divert to a Cat C airport or an emergency airport if you really think you need to, but it's not the most desirable airport on account of a number of factors, so we're not going to force your hand". These pre-determined categories of course take into account the runways available, navigation aids, emergency services, lighting, and a bunch of other stuff.
QF also gives the Pilot in Command an out, in that he can do whatever he feels is necessary for the safety of the flight under the circumstances (except proceed past the nearest suitable), irrespective of all these definitions. But certainly in the incident described, there would be no rules or criteria broken at all by continuing to HNL. I think JQ operate by the same or similar principles.
Last edited by DutchRoll; 13th Nov 2013 at 09:47.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey DutchRoll
What is the difference in fuel burn for DP and OEI DP for an A330. I know there's not a big difference on the T7. So at the end of a diversion out might not have a lot more fuel.
I know a lot of EDTO is a fuel planning exercise but if you are EDTO fuel critical and you're below flight plan fuel I think it's just airmanship to consider your options and make contingency plans, just part of being situationally aware.
What is the difference in fuel burn for DP and OEI DP for an A330. I know there's not a big difference on the T7. So at the end of a diversion out might not have a lot more fuel.
I know a lot of EDTO is a fuel planning exercise but if you are EDTO fuel critical and you're below flight plan fuel I think it's just airmanship to consider your options and make contingency plans, just part of being situationally aware.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In JQ, a Company Approved Adequate Airport does fall under the definition given of "Suitable Airport".
PKMJ, Majuro, is classified as a company approved, Category A, Adequate Airport.
PKMJ, Majuro, is classified as a company approved, Category A, Adequate Airport.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's not a massive difference in F/F (a few hundred kg/hr), so yeah what you say may well be the case depending on the diversion time.
However that's nil wind. The wind can be markedly different at EO LRC ceiling (say, around FL250), and 10,000ft (in the depressurised case). This is the thing I've seen many guys ignore when they sweat on the CPE, which for the Bus assumes you're both single engine and depressurised, as if it's the same thing as an ETP with an engine failure but not depressurised.
I agree with your sentiment regarding contingency plans, etc. I wouldn't like going below the ETOPs flight plan fuel either (my attitude to fuel planning is certainly never going pave me a path to Management
). It is planned that way to cover the worst case and if it's not your lucky day, you might need every drop of it!
Certainly in relation to the original post and the info we have, it doesn't seem the crew did anything untoward by continuing as they did. Christmas Island is a flight planned ETOPS adequate (Cat C airport) too, and honestly my A330 would have to be in a very serious condition to head to a tiny speck in the middle of a massive ocean in the dark of night (as QF and JQ flights to HNL are conducted) with one 2000m runway, a non-precision approach, PAL, no ATC, and landing on one engine. Majuro is similar, but marginally longer.
Well that's an interesting difference! Strange that it can be considered cat A for a JQ A330, but cat C for a QF A330, especially when you look at the airfield and it's facilities. 
I mean, QF and JQ A330s are one and the same. As I say, I'm speaking from a QF perspective. What you just told me is weird.
However that's nil wind. The wind can be markedly different at EO LRC ceiling (say, around FL250), and 10,000ft (in the depressurised case). This is the thing I've seen many guys ignore when they sweat on the CPE, which for the Bus assumes you're both single engine and depressurised, as if it's the same thing as an ETP with an engine failure but not depressurised.
I agree with your sentiment regarding contingency plans, etc. I wouldn't like going below the ETOPs flight plan fuel either (my attitude to fuel planning is certainly never going pave me a path to Management
). It is planned that way to cover the worst case and if it's not your lucky day, you might need every drop of it!Certainly in relation to the original post and the info we have, it doesn't seem the crew did anything untoward by continuing as they did. Christmas Island is a flight planned ETOPS adequate (Cat C airport) too, and honestly my A330 would have to be in a very serious condition to head to a tiny speck in the middle of a massive ocean in the dark of night (as QF and JQ flights to HNL are conducted) with one 2000m runway, a non-precision approach, PAL, no ATC, and landing on one engine. Majuro is similar, but marginally longer.
PKMJ, Majuro, is classified as a company approved, Category A, Adequate Airport.
I mean, QF and JQ A330s are one and the same. As I say, I'm speaking from a QF perspective. What you just told me is weird.
Last edited by DutchRoll; 14th Nov 2013 at 07:42.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi DutchRoll
My question was comparing DP with OEI DP (ie both at same altitude) so wind is irrelevant other than making the diversion quicker/longer. My rough calcs put the difference at about 800kg/hr for B777.
My point is that a lot of pilots say the chances of getting engine problem and depressurisation at the CP is minuscule, but that's not quite the case.
My question was comparing DP with OEI DP (ie both at same altitude) so wind is irrelevant other than making the diversion quicker/longer. My rough calcs put the difference at about 800kg/hr for B777.
My point is that a lot of pilots say the chances of getting engine problem and depressurisation at the CP is minuscule, but that's not quite the case.
Last edited by Jet Man; 15th Nov 2013 at 19:35.
My point is that a lot of pilots say the chances of getting engine problem and depressurisation at the CP is minuscule, but that's not quite the case.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oops, missed a 0 on my last post, should be 800 not 80!
OEI only is somewhere in between but winds are different as has been pointed out.
Won't post specific examples. Glance at performance manuals should suffice.
OEI only is somewhere in between but winds are different as has been pointed out.
Won't post specific examples. Glance at performance manuals should suffice.
Last edited by Jet Man; 15th Nov 2013 at 20:12.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 347
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jet man what do you reckon the actual likelihood of suffering an engine failure and a depressurisation, and being at 10 000' exactly at the CP is? How many times has it happened so far in the history of commercial jet flight?
So in the QF case, lets assume for simplicity its CAVOK at all fields in the pacific.
Can a QF twin dispatch under EDTO using MAJ (for example) as an EDTO ERA, then suffer an engine failure over MAJ and the crew can elect to continue several hours to destination?
Can a QF twin dispatch under EDTO using MAJ (for example) as an EDTO ERA, then suffer an engine failure over MAJ and the crew can elect to continue several hours to destination?
Join Date: May 2004
Location: australia
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A conspiracy theorist might suggest that, if MAJ was a 'suitable' , then, under the QF rules, the PIC may feel more obligation to land there, (CAO 20.6 notwithstanding, as discussed in this thread)... I guess QF, like all other airlines, wants the a/c at the dest rather than another port.
The only reason that airports like MAJ (and PHTO and PLCH) are even up for discussion is to be able to dispatch a two-holer from (say) SYD to HNL or west coast USA legally on the 180 ETOPS rule (A330). No-one wants or even envisages going there. IMHO, thats why they are categorised this way..
The only reason that airports like MAJ (and PHTO and PLCH) are even up for discussion is to be able to dispatch a two-holer from (say) SYD to HNL or west coast USA legally on the 180 ETOPS rule (A330). No-one wants or even envisages going there. IMHO, thats why they are categorised this way..
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ernestkgann
Less than the chance of medical diversion
Less than the chance of an engine problem
Less than the chance of a depressurisation
etc ......
My point was to be aware of fuel state for other scenarios as well and don't just dismiss if you are below the CP fuel because of the minuscule chance of a OEI DP happening at the most critical point.
Less than the chance of medical diversion
Less than the chance of an engine problem
Less than the chance of a depressurisation
etc ......
My point was to be aware of fuel state for other scenarios as well and don't just dismiss if you are below the CP fuel because of the minuscule chance of a OEI DP happening at the most critical point.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Isn't the logic of EDTO, that after a critical system failure the AOC approval requires an aircraft to land within the maximum diversion threshold of 3 hours?
Are you guys saying an aircraft can fly past an adequate or suitable airport (where it initially has enough fuel to divert to) and set course for it's destination single engine purely cause it has enough fuel?
What if the destination is more than 3 hours away and you get something like a cargo fire warning? After travelling a certain distance past the suitable or adequate airport single engine where there would then be insufficient fuel to return to the adequate or suitable airport with sufficient reserves (ie: the return suitable or adequate has a tempo weather requirement)
MC
Are you guys saying an aircraft can fly past an adequate or suitable airport (where it initially has enough fuel to divert to) and set course for it's destination single engine purely cause it has enough fuel?
What if the destination is more than 3 hours away and you get something like a cargo fire warning? After travelling a certain distance past the suitable or adequate airport single engine where there would then be insufficient fuel to return to the adequate or suitable airport with sufficient reserves (ie: the return suitable or adequate has a tempo weather requirement)
MC
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Asia
Age: 62
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
United Airlines fly to Majuro 3 days a week in a B737-800, so the airport is more than capable of handling an A330. RNAV approach both runways. As good as an ILS.
If the airport is classed as Cat C, not suitable, then why bother nominate it as an EDTO alternate. It's your licence. Why would you fly on one engine, further than you had to do so, over nothing but water.
The passengers wouldn't be happy if they knew they were being put at extra risk.
If the airport is classed as Cat C, not suitable, then why bother nominate it as an EDTO alternate. It's your licence. Why would you fly on one engine, further than you had to do so, over nothing but water.
The passengers wouldn't be happy if they knew they were being put at extra risk.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Im with you Ekolbreigit.
Its similar to departing an airport where the weather is below minimums for a return. An ETOPS dispatched aircraft (in Australia) requires an airport where weather is forecasted above Adequate dispatch minimums within the ETOPS maximum diversion threshold.
So why would someone become airborne and suffer a critical system failure only to continue to the destination, further than the ETOPS diversion threshold?
Its comparable to getting airborne in Sydney, choosing not to land in Williamstown or Richmond and continuing to Auckland.
Its similar to departing an airport where the weather is below minimums for a return. An ETOPS dispatched aircraft (in Australia) requires an airport where weather is forecasted above Adequate dispatch minimums within the ETOPS maximum diversion threshold.
So why would someone become airborne and suffer a critical system failure only to continue to the destination, further than the ETOPS diversion threshold?
Its comparable to getting airborne in Sydney, choosing not to land in Williamstown or Richmond and continuing to Auckland.
Last edited by Mstr Caution; 18th Nov 2013 at 02:21.