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…. |
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. |
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 |
*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. |
Which shows how little the general people on here understand regulation and certification, really.
|
Originally Posted by Sir HC
(Post 11122813)
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. 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.😜 |
Originally Posted by Sir HC
(Post 11122813)
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. You don’t have to be an old man to realise that it’s all good, until something goes wrong. |
Originally Posted by Squawk7700
(Post 11122897)
They probably said that about the A380 and I’m thinking QF32.
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? |
Originally Posted by Sir HC
(Post 11122911)
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? 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. |
Originally Posted by Squawk7700
(Post 11122920)
Ridiculous?
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. . And the same observation of lesser experience can be made of any incident / near accident / accident. |
Originally Posted by Squawk7700
(Post 11122920)
Ridiculous?
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. We obviously approach risk differently but I'd encourage you to keep emotion out of your decision making. |
Originally Posted by Sir HC
(Post 11122935)
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. But far out, what a flight. Too long for me thanks :eek: |
Originally Posted by Squawk7700
(Post 11122897)
They probably said that about the A380 and I’m thinking QF32.
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 |
Good on them I say.
I always used to wonder when I was at NZ about AKL - LHR non-stop. Straight up the meridian and over the top. :E Now that would be a flight. |
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? |
Watch the video, all is explained.
|
Wonder how the Flat Earthers rationalise this flight taking only 15 hours and going via Antarctica?
|
Originally Posted by RAD_ALT_ALIVE
(Post 11122991)
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 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.! |
Great Circle
https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....a9a4fd4af0.png 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 |
Can anyone post a route map of such a flight? |
Originally Posted by compressor stall
(Post 11122925)
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. (making up the remaining characters) |
Originally Posted by Sir HC
(Post 11122935)
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. Your approach to risk appears to be similar a bean counter or a commander at war. |
Originally Posted by Ascend Charlie
(Post 11123019)
Wonder how the Flat Earthers rationalise this flight taking only 15 hours and going via Antarctica?
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. |
Flight time 17 hours 41 mins. Departed on time, arrived 6 mins early. wow
|
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.
|
There is a bit more here from flightradar24 that shows the actual flight path vs the great circle route.
|
Originally Posted by Squawk7700
(Post 11123063)
So it's not zero.
Your approach to risk appears to be similar a bean counter or a commander at war. 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. |
Originally Posted by Squawk7700
(Post 11123063)
So it's not zero.
Your approach to risk appears to be similar a bean counter or a commander at war. 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. |
Are you telling me there are things that are zero risk |
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 !
|
Originally Posted by SASKATOON9999
(Post 11123533)
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 !
|
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. |
so it’s more about what the one engine takes with it when it goes |
Originally Posted by tdracer
(Post 11122958)
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. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 00:22. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.