QF14 Buenos Aires to Darwin
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.!
Points and etc.
Dodging the speedy westerlies would need some shifting about, no doubt
sure is a lot of water out there.!
Great Circle
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
Flight Aware
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/QFA14
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
Flight Aware
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/QFA14
Last edited by megan; 8th Oct 2021 at 06:48. Reason: Flight Aware, thanks Capt Fathom
(making up the remaining characters)
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.
We obviously approach risk differently but I'd encourage you to keep emotion out of your decision making.
Your approach to risk appears to be similar a bean counter or a commander at war.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 !
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Mordor
Posts: 335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
so it’s more about what the one engine takes with it when it goes
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.
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.