QF14 Buenos Aires to Darwin

[Capt Fathom]

Originally Posted by RAD_ALT_ALIVE

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?

All Extended Range operations in remote locations face the same issues. Where can I land if it goes bad. And when things go bad, they rarely go bad as per the book!

[aroa]

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.!

[megan]

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

[Capt Fathom]

Can anyone post a route map of such a flight?

Go to Flight Aware or Flight Radar 24 and search for QFA14

[Squawk7700]

Originally Posted by compressor stall

out of respect for the others on the flight deck too humble to go on speaking circuits … you should replace “pilot” with “crew”.

And the same observation of lesser experience can be made of any incident / near accident / accident.

True...

(making up the remaining characters)

[Squawk7700]

Originally Posted by Sir HC

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.

So it's not zero.
Your approach to risk appears to be similar a bean counter or a commander at war.

[DuncanDoenitz]

Originally Posted by Ascend Charlie

Wonder how the Flat Earthers rationalise this flight taking only 15 hours and going via Antarctica?

As it happens, I've also been following The Flat Earth Society forum for a couple of years. (TFES.org: I urge you to take a look, its brilliant).

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.

[mustafagander]

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.

[Sober Lark]

Flight time 17 hours 41 mins. Departed on time, arrived 6 mins early. wow

[aroa]

Thanks for that Megan. Wow. One might get a look at Antartica but not feel how cold it is. Thankfully ….for reliable engines. No survival suits for anyone no doubt.

[Capt Fathom]

There is a bit more here from flightradar24 that shows the actual flight path vs the great circle route.

[tdracer]

Originally Posted by Squawk7700

So it's not zero.
Your approach to risk appears to be similar a bean counter or a commander at war.

Nothing, absolutely nothing in life is zero risk. Aviation is no different. All we can do is minimize the risks. The risk of a dual engine shutdown on a long ETOPS flight is not zero, but it's pretty damn low - as in less than 1 in 1 billion. Not coincidentally, less than "one in a billion" is what we used to determine 'safety' in aviation since it's not physically possible to make the risk of a catastrophic outcome zero.
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.

[morno]

Originally Posted by Squawk7700

So it's not zero.
Your approach to risk appears to be similar a bean counter or a commander at war.

Are you telling me there are things that are zero risk?

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.

[megan]

Are you telling me there are things that are zero risk

Sure there is, lying in a coffin with six feet of dirt on top sealing you in, nothing can touch you.

[Squawk7700]

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.

[SASKATOON9999]

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 !

[Sidestick_n_Rudder]

Originally Posted by SASKATOON9999

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 !

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.

[JRK]

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.

[megan]

so it’s more about what the one engine takes with it when it goes

As with the Honolulu 777 video I posted. With full power on the good engine they were unable to arrest the descent, had they been further out than TOD it would have resulted in a ditching. When it rolled to 45° after it spat the fan blade he had difficulty controlling the roll, I thought his thought of continuing the roll for the other 315° would have been a good war story for the pax to tell at a dinner party, 777 with a full load would put "Tex" Johnsons -80 effort in the shade.

[OldLurker]

Originally Posted by tdracer

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.

ISTR that a 747 out of LAX or SFO (I forget which), destination LHR, lost an engine on takeoff and, with plenty of options in North America before they committed to the pond, the crew elected to continue rather than hang about dumping fuel and land back. In a twin they wouldn't have dared, or been permitted, to do that. They could have made it to LHR but precautionally chose MAN - the right country, at least. (Afterwards, some other 747 drivers admitted to have done much the same thing.)