Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

American flies Non-ETOPS A321 to Hawaii

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

American flies Non-ETOPS A321 to Hawaii

Old 13th Sep 2015, 13:51
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,870
And, ETOPS, in the U.S. at least, now applies to aircraft with more than two engines for flights more than 180 minutes from an alternate.
Airbubba is offline  
Old 13th Sep 2015, 16:00
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,840
To be clear, that's 3 and 4 engine passenger carrying aircraft.
MarkerInbound is offline  
Old 13th Sep 2015, 16:22
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,870
To be clear, that's 3 and 4 engine passenger carrying aircraft.
Yep, like the new rest rules, cargo carriers are exempt.
Airbubba is offline  
Old 13th Sep 2015, 17:17
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Las Vegas NV.
Age: 60
Posts: 165
Seems this has reached the main stream media.

American Airlines accidentally flew the wrong plane from L.A. to Hawaii last month - The Washington Post

it came to their attention from pilots chatting anonymously online.
LASJayhawk is offline  
Old 13th Sep 2015, 18:42
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,207
All AA 321 have the extra fuel tanks. No difference between ETOPS and non-ETOPS fuel capacity.
misd-agin is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2015, 06:38
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 362
Still, nice to see that it got there and back without incident.
msbbarratt is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2015, 06:54
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: .
Posts: 309
it came to their attention from pilots chatting anonymously online.
Off topic but something that bugs me is that most journalists nowadays just get everything from the internet.
Must be a depressing job to trawl farcebook, [email protected] and this place for anything vaguely newsworthy.
Nemrytter is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2015, 08:20
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 12,765
Originally Posted by misd-agin View Post
All AA 321 have the extra fuel tanks. No difference between ETOPS and non-ETOPS fuel capacity.
Fair enough, I stand corrected on the tanks.

Any joy yet on a picture of those elusive external ETOPS markings?
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2015, 08:36
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: KIAD
Posts: 188
The Captain absolutely is at fault. He signed for the aircraft under FAR121, accepting that the aircraft, weather etc was satisfactory for the proposed route.

One of a Captains final actions before push is to inspect the maintenance status of the aircraft as indicated by the logbook, ensuring amongst other things, that an ETOPS predeparture inspection has been conducted.

The Captain is the final authority on letting an operation begin or not.
Oilhead is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2015, 09:16
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: flying by night
Posts: 500
The Captain absolutely is at fault. He signed for the aircraft under FAR121

yes, however it's a shared responsibility with the dispatcher: "no person may start a flight unless an aircraft dispatcher specifically authorizes that flight" (121 Subpart U)

and "The pilot in command and the aircraft dispatcher are jointly responsible for the preflight planning, delay, and dispatch release of a flight in compliance with this chapter and operations specifications." (Subpart T)

a sub-fleet is operationally challenging...as it has just been proven.

Last edited by deptrai; 14th Sep 2015 at 10:13.
deptrai is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2015, 09:47
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Cyprus
Posts: 35
Herod : Re your post 59 ; I think it might be tea & biscuits with the Fleet Captain. Put round the other way, non-ETOPS but you find yourself in an ETOPS segment (?). I was on the N Atlantic, non-ETOPS aircraft and non-ETOPS route but with skillfull, routine, geometric compass and Douglas Protractor, found ourselves ETOPS for 10 minutes. OK, 80 nm is nothing but with my history of historic abuse & persecution, I volunteered the info & got a right royal ticking off. Yeah, I hear you all saying I should have kept quiet but with my history, I would have faced public ridicule and a spot on the Larry King show ! That company went bust (probably my fault) but in the next, a long sector could be made a lot shorter by a direct route which would take you ETOPS (for about 10 minutes) Lots did it,without ETOPS clearance but with my background, I stuck to the rules. Still got set up like the proverbial ten pin 15 years later though !Nowadays, much less stressful in my inflatable boat, in my own pool. Dinghy practice anyone ?
Gordomac is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2015, 10:16
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 416
Have never worked for a fully legally dispatched airline, with licensed Dispatcher as in this case.
It has always struck me a slightly squiffy that a guy who stays on the ground can make and overrule the operating Captain, from what I have been told by US pilots.
In the UK and ME there is an ETOPS preflight release box in the Techlog. Obviously a DO NOT MISS signature acceptance preflight.
Do the non ETOPS and ETOPS aircraft share a common techlog page format? If so that is a real man trap that can be easily rectified.
alwayzinit is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2015, 11:13
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Surrounded by aluminum, and the great outdoors
Posts: 3,787
tea and bikkies for the dispatcher and Captain...and FO for not raising any question...
ironbutt57 is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2015, 12:31
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Airstrip One
Posts: 12
"According comments [sic] from an American Airlines spokesperson, both A321 variants are both [sic] equipped with similar safety gear, including life rafts."

American Airlines accidentally used the wrong plane to fly to Hawaii | The Verge
Gridl0k is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2015, 12:43
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Big Sky Country
Posts: 125
This is a scheduling/dispatch error. The aircraft was ETOPS capable but not yet been added to the op-spec as an ETOPS certified aircraft. The engineers and pilots have no easy visibility on this part of the process. I'm sure the FAA having in-depth discussions in the new ops center!
LME (GOD) is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2015, 13:08
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,840
It has always struck me a slightly squiffy that a guy who stays on the ground can make and overrule the operating Captain, from what I have been told by US pilots.

It'so more of a check and balance system. You wouldn't want us cowboy Yank pilots going hither and yon without adult supervision would you? The Captain always has the power of the parking brake. One of the questions I remember from the dispatcher oral was, "Who cancels a flight?" The Captain can say he's not flying the trip. Scheduling will just round up another pilot. If the Dispatcher says "We can't fly to XWZ this morning" the flight disappears from the schedule.

I've heard this was the crew's first real ETOPS flights. Certainly their first to Hawaii. There will be plenty of blame to go around. The aircraft schedulers built a plan with this airframe going to Hawaii. Dispatch cut paperwork sending the plane to Hawaii. The crew was the last link in the chain.
MarkerInbound is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2015, 13:27
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: flying by night
Posts: 500
The crew was the last link in the chain

that was my immediate thought as well. Purely legally, both the captain and dispatcher are to blame. But there's probably lots of holes in the swiss cheese, and from an operational perspective, a sub-fleet can be challenging, particularly when it's new for everyone.

It has always struck me a slightly squiffy that a guy who stays on the ground can make and overrule the operating Captain. A simple cross-check, not unheard of in aviation? More pairs of eyes etc. As for "guys who stay on the ground and overrule the captain", if a LAME says "no I'm not going to sign the maintenance release"...no sane captain would feel hurt in his pride and feel overruled...(?)
deptrai is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2015, 14:00
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,207
The plane was not ETOPS capable. It was not a certification issue.


I've seen photos with 'ETOPS' on the fuselage. Medium/pale blue, vertically aligned above the small nose gear door's forward edge.


As far as signing for a jet - if mx missed something in the heavy C check are you responsible? Didn't you just say you signed for the airplane? So saying someone signed for the airplane is a statement that doesn't cover all situations.






"But there's probably lots of holes in the swiss cheese, and from an operational perspective, a sub-fleet can be challenging, particularly when it's new for everyone."
misd-agin is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2015, 14:00
  #59 (permalink)  
Resident insomniac
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: N54 58 34 W02 01 21
Age: 76
Posts: 1,866
Was this a case of a potentially unsafe aircraft being used?
Or was it just a certifying oversight?

What physical equipment was missing?
G-CPTN is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2015, 14:37
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,315
This incident has gotten legs in the Los Angeles media market. They aren't letting go of it.
aterpster is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.