QR - are we losing ETOPS in A330?
. We are trying desperately to crash here i guess. Place is a real mess. I've been put back on the 330 till the 340 arrives. Bummer!!! 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Always in the air
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Still ETOPS ???
Do you really mean that, after all these single engine failures AND the one both engines failure, you still do ETOPS?
The least I can say is that this is very brave of you.
The least I can say is that this is very brave of you.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 467
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
daidalos, that's not what we're doing that's our certification. The longest ETOPS sector apart from artificially created once (south Africa) is about 37 min in the northern China. However once the A 346 starts to operate we will apply for 240 certification
How many did really believe that?
How many did really believe that?
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Always in the air
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
daidalos, that's not what we're doing that's our certification. The longest ETOPS sector apart from artificially created once (south Africa) is about 37 min in the northern China. However once the A 346 starts to operate we will apply for 240 certification
How many did really believe that?
How many did really believe that?
The problem is not how I'm writing it, but the meaning of my writing which, I believe, was understood :-)
You still look ... brave to me.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 467
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
daidalos, well I don't know what QR wants or what it doesn't. Neither do I know what CAA has said to that issue. I think its a perfect time to refer to the relativity theory. Lets assume we loose ETOPS, whats then? Are you gonna feel better being 422 NM away from an adequate airdrome? That's your legal limit 60 min on A 330 maintaining Vmo/Mmo. Theoretically we shouldn't fly more than 100 NM away from an adequate airdrome if you don't believe at least one of the engines will restart, cause that's your distance in case you follow the dual flame out procedure unless the reason is fuel leak. In case of fuel leak you can extend the distance up to 150 NM to be conservative something like 3 deg. descent path on green dot.
How do feel now being 422 miles away from an adequate airdrome none ETOPS? Isn't it all a bit relative compared to being 90 min, if we are talking about probability of dual flame out and not regaining one of the the engines back. Its all based on the 95% probability my friend, exactly as your nav accuracy.
However, methinks its certainly a very unpleasant experience but hasn't got anything to do with being brave or not so.
Cheers.
How do feel now being 422 miles away from an adequate airdrome none ETOPS? Isn't it all a bit relative compared to being 90 min, if we are talking about probability of dual flame out and not regaining one of the the engines back. Its all based on the 95% probability my friend, exactly as your nav accuracy.
However, methinks its certainly a very unpleasant experience but hasn't got anything to do with being brave or not so.
Cheers.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Bit nosey aren't you
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By the way, how many jets are parked at Doha at the mo, the engineer reckoned up to 10 when I was there last week.
Ghost
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Always in the air
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Popay
Make no mistake. I am not glad that this kind of problems are faced by any colleague of mine (That is a professional Pilot).
Simply they should first solve the problem and then reconsider the extended range, which will not do you - or anybody else - any good with these conditions. My exclamation was to the original post, which showed a fear of "losing" ETOPS and not thinking about "forcing" the solution of the problem.
Make no mistake. I am not glad that this kind of problems are faced by any colleague of mine (That is a professional Pilot).
Simply they should first solve the problem and then reconsider the extended range, which will not do you - or anybody else - any good with these conditions. My exclamation was to the original post, which showed a fear of "losing" ETOPS and not thinking about "forcing" the solution of the problem.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 467
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ghostflyer,
Wouldn't be such a bad idea, we could save some fuel as well. 
I'm not gonna fly it, cause it'd be inauspiciously for the career progress and besides its too long and I couldn't land that thing.
daidalos, sorry mate you lost me there but I'm all ear if you wanna propose any solution. Tel us what to do?
Cheers.
What has a '346' got to do with ETOPS? Are you planning to fly them on 2 and keep the others as spares?
I'm not gonna fly it, cause it'd be inauspiciously for the career progress and besides its too long and I couldn't land that thing.
daidalos, sorry mate you lost me there but I'm all ear if you wanna propose any solution. Tel us what to do?
Cheers.
