QF14 Buenos Aires to Darwin
QF14 Buenos Aires to Darwin
Just wondering what the furthest the 787 was from a diversion during the flight. As a government sponsored repatriation flight, did standard ETOPS apply.
Yes it was a commercial flight as they sold seats on it.
QF 787’s have 330 min ETOPS, they didn't follow the great circle track exactly as they needed to 1/ stay within 330 mins and 2/ also avoid the head winds….
QF 787’s have 330 min ETOPS, they didn't follow the great circle track exactly as they needed to 1/ stay within 330 mins and 2/ also avoid the head winds….
330 minutes ETOPS? Five and half hours on one engine across inhospitable terrain. It’s a sobering thought.
5 ½ hours to the nearest airport. Great if you are on fire!
But you can always put the aircraft down somewhere. Oh, that’s right… Antarctica.
Someone will be along soon!
I can’t believe flights over such remote areas can be approved by any sane authority.
But you can always put the aircraft down somewhere. Oh, that’s right… Antarctica.
Someone will be along soon!
I can’t believe flights over such remote areas can be approved by any sane authority.
I reckon many would agree with you Capt Fathom.
good old CASA insist on the MOS covering alternates, both enroute and off route, and ETPs and PNRs the same. And yet a light twin can plan 5.5 hours OEI
Brave dispatching by QF too
good old CASA insist on the MOS covering alternates, both enroute and off route, and ETPs and PNRs the same. And yet a light twin can plan 5.5 hours OEI
Brave dispatching by QF too
*Old man yells at cloud
Probably the most technologically advanced mass produced aircraft ever built, reliable beyond belief.
How typically Boomer Australian of you to find the negatives in something and ask CASA for more overreach.
How typically Boomer Australian of you to find the negatives in something and ask CASA for more overreach.
https://www.seattletimes.com/busines...t-over-cracks/
Out of curiosity, does anyone know what S.E. TAS that QF uses in calculating ETPs? Asking for a friend.😜
You don’t have to be an old man to realise that it’s all good, until something goes wrong.
Pretty good odds to me. I personally would feel safer in a 787 that loses an engine over Antarctica than in any DC-3 in the 60's. Even your ridiculous QF32 example resulted in how many fatalities?
From Wikipedia: Up to March 2016, it has a dispatch reliability of 99.9 percent and four in-flight shutdown (IFSD) gave a rate of 2 IFSD per million flight hours.[48]
Pretty good odds to me. I personally would feel safer in a 787 that loses an engine over Antarctica than in any DC-3 in the 60's. Even your ridiculous QF32 example resulted in how many fatalities?
Pretty good odds to me. I personally would feel safer in a 787 that loses an engine over Antarctica than in any DC-3 in the 60's. Even your ridiculous QF32 example resulted in how many fatalities?
Do you realise how close they came to losing all souls on board? A lesser experienced pilot would not have ended up with the same result.
99.9% means nothing when your family members are onboard and there’s a flameout over Antartica.
And the same observation of lesser experience can be made of any incident / near accident / accident.
We obviously approach risk differently but I'd encourage you to keep emotion out of your decision making.
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.
But far out, what a flight. Too long for me thanks
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.
There is always an outlier, 777 about to reach TOD into Honolulu, had the fan blade penetrated the fuselage resulting in a decompression they would have been facing a ditching, fortunately it hit a stringer which prevented penetration. Had it happened at a ETOPS, once again a ditching.
Interview with the Captain.
NTSB report.
https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/a...port/96738/pdf
Interview with the Captain.
NTSB report.
https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/a...port/96738/pdf
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Megan,
Can you let us know why you think a depressurisation would definitely result in a ditching (whether ETOPS or not)?
Every flightplan has to take into account the worst case fuel scenario of normal cruise/OEI/OEI depressurised (if more critical than AEO depressurised) and use the most critical scenario as the minimum fuel uplift. So if there is a depressurisation, with or without an engine failure, right at the 5.5 hour point, then the aircraft will have enough fuel to make its ETOPS adequate airport.
So if fuel is no issue, what then is the reason behind your assertion?
Even the NTSB classified the damage to this B777 as 'light', so it can't be due to catastrophic damage - and a hole in the fuselage caused by an errant fan blade isn't necessarily going to bring down the aircraft (see UA811 where the entire forward cargo door came off, but it still landed safely).
Capt Fathom,
What would a B744 crew have had as choices if they were to suffer an uncontrollable fire at the CP between SYD and JNB, or EZE? No different to the modern twins really, is it?
Can you let us know why you think a depressurisation would definitely result in a ditching (whether ETOPS or not)?
Every flightplan has to take into account the worst case fuel scenario of normal cruise/OEI/OEI depressurised (if more critical than AEO depressurised) and use the most critical scenario as the minimum fuel uplift. So if there is a depressurisation, with or without an engine failure, right at the 5.5 hour point, then the aircraft will have enough fuel to make its ETOPS adequate airport.
So if fuel is no issue, what then is the reason behind your assertion?
Even the NTSB classified the damage to this B777 as 'light', so it can't be due to catastrophic damage - and a hole in the fuselage caused by an errant fan blade isn't necessarily going to bring down the aircraft (see UA811 where the entire forward cargo door came off, but it still landed safely).
Capt Fathom,
What would a B744 crew have had as choices if they were to suffer an uncontrollable fire at the CP between SYD and JNB, or EZE? No different to the modern twins really, is it?