How about we get a hotline to a "flight crew lawyer" on the flight deck so we can have a conversation about which procedure we should apply in a given situation which allow the flight crew to enjoy the said experience.

This questioning of what a flight crew did or did not do or should have or shouldn't have or weather they should have had soy milk instead of low fat with their weaties at breakfast is getting ridiculous.

601
I completely agree
Alas it's what the world has evolved into

That sure could have been what he meant to say. Check out the tower audio at the link above starting at about 23:00 into the clip. He says a phrase that sounds to me like 'three flameouts' several times. I also like the emphatically negative reply to 'AC 17 are you OK?' :ok: It's a busy time of life that in recent decades I've only experienced in the sim (so far ;)).

Air Canada in the past was known for not dumping on their 767's and had the fuel jettison system disabled or not installed on their entire '76 fleet. They also disabled the fuel jettison on some DC-9 10's and 30's as I recall.

Yep, that 180 minutes is strictly for dispatch in my view. If you lose an engine in an ETOPS twin you are still required to proceed to the nearest suitable airport in point of time for landing under FAA rules. And often that airport is not one of your designated ETOPS alternates. I've sure had a check airman on an overwater line check try to tell me otherwise, that we had to go to an ETOPS alternate 'since that is what our POI (now OI) wants us to do'. Mitigating circumstance, the LCA was a Marine :).

You broke the code. These days you are expected to get on the sat phone and convene a meeting with your company's Subject Matter Experts to discuss any technical issues that arise while airborne. You really have to be careful since anything they say is advisory and if it's wrong the feds come after your ticket, not theirs. At least that's my paranoid view in this new CYA world of captain's authority modified by a committee meeting.

Best to deal with facts at the time when choosing what checklist to follow.

I agree lomapaseo.
The facts are one engine on a twin= no redundancy,
Checklist land at nearest suitable airfield

The pilot in command is in the best position to assess all relevant factors and determine the best course of action.

I suggest much of that decision will depend on what training has been given to commanders.

Checklist land at nearest suitable airfield

There has always been the debate about land at nearest and/or ASAP.

180 minutes is strictly for dispatch in my view. If you lose an engine in an ETOPS twin you are still required to proceed to the nearest suitable airport in point of time for landing under FAA rules. And often that airport is not one of your designated ETOPS alternates.

There are times on overwater flights where the nearest suitable is also a 2-3hr ETOPS Alt'n. I don't know all the current twins so I wonder at the difference between MTOW & MLW? Suppose you are 3hrs out from departure; and then entering a 2.30hr circle to an ETOPS Alt'n and a problem occurs: You divert one engine out to the ETOPS Alt'n (huge commercial pressure to return, I know); you arrive at Alt'n >MLW. Surely no-one is going to dump fuel to delay the landing? If not then, they why anytime? I just propose the question for discussion, and also wonder what flight time is required to take the very large twins from MTOW to MLW.

Rat 5
787-9 MTOW circa 252 Tonnes, MLW circa 192 Tonnes thus approx fuel flow 5T/hr therefore you could fly for approx 12 hrs.

Another feature of the 787 is that the OPT onboard performance tool incorporates a return to land calculation within the take off calculation. A field is available to input icing conditions expected yes or no this is purely for the return to land calculation for the OEI missed approach, this due to the fact an allowance is made for stab icing during the return to land manoeuvre if yes is inserted. Thus you could be in a position where payload is limited at take off due to return to land performance. However as a driver always nice to know you have return to land performance.

BG: thank you. Therefore the scenario of an ETOPS diversion to an overweight landing, one engine or not, is very real. I suppose there is the chance that during an ETOPS diversion the time could be used to dump at a point en-route so as to arrive at landing on MLW.

Rat 5
Yes your scenario is a possibility and Jettison en-route would be the thing to do .

I am not criticising this particular crew as All is well that ends well, and no doubt a good job was done.

I was answering JJ A4 query that the option to land overweight is an option with an engine faliure on a twin.

As previously mentioned my company has this policy, I must say a lot of us have recently converted to the twin from decades of flying the quad where the threats involved are not as significant, and I believe the company correctly is trying to re set our brains from Quad to twin.

An example of that mindset change would be to declare a Mayday with an engine failure on take off with the Quad, and downgrade to a Pan if appropriate once secure, however to maintain Mayday status with the twin.

This is my operators Philosophy of which I am very happy with.

Others no doubt will have different Philosophies.

My Boeing checklist has you shut down the engine and gives you the option to try and restart it. A decision then not to continue from homebase on an ultra long haul sector with a suspect engine is quite likely. In this case if both engines were running and before returning for a precautionary landing it would make reasonable sense to dump fuel. We do not know the details. All will be revealed in due course.

English language skills at Montreal ATC
 

I can assure Airbubba that the Montreal, Quebec, controllers all speak English completely fluently.

Video of landing + comms with ARFF.
https://youtu.be/z19Y2ujXO7g

Rockhound....

Do you want to rephrase that? Perhaps what you mean is: "Controllers in Quebec meet Nav Canada standards for English language proficiency."

Sam,
My intention was merely to disabuse Airbubba of the notion that Montreal FIR controllers may be deficient in English language skills.

Airbubba you are unusually well informed but, alas, not 100% accurate. The fuel dumping system on the 767's was not deactivated on all the fins, just a small number of them (if memory serves). I believe quite a few of the inherited fins from the merger had the dump systems disabled. It wasn't a situation I was pleased about but sometime around 2004 or so they began to reactivate the 767 fuel dump system.

I didn't fly the DC9-10 (a bit before my time) and although I flew the DC9-15 I can't remember whether that variant had a dump system or not, but I can definitely confirm that all the DC9-32's had a serviceable fuel dump system.

This may be a dumb question, but if the fuel vaporizes so quickly, why have designated dump areas at all ?

It's vaporised, but not dispersed. It will still kill fish, plants etc if it lands on them.

I'd rather have A1 drizzle than 200+ tonnes of B.787 or similar large aerial device drop on my home area !

My understanding is those are (if) in place for ATC purposes.