American flies Non-ETOPS A321 to Hawaii
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
deptrai, I wasn't having dig. Just from the info from US pilots I work with, the Dispatcher decides the fuel etc for a flight, if I'm wrong apologies.
Can anyone tell me if the logbook formats are the same in non-etops aircraft as etops aircraft?
Can anyone tell me if the logbook formats are the same in non-etops aircraft as etops aircraft?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Same logbook format. Every ETOPS flight has a requirement for an ETOPS release.
Dispatcher plans the flight w/fuel. Captain can overrule. Fuel increase vs. dispatcher's plan? It's in the single digit range (<10% of flights).
Dispatcher plans the flight w/fuel. Captain can overrule. Fuel increase vs. dispatcher's plan? It's in the single digit range (<10% of flights).
Currently the #1 "most read" story on the BBC News website. :-(
American Airlines flies uncertified plane to Hawaii - BBC News
American Airlines flies uncertified plane to Hawaii - BBC News
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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.
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.
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.
Everything looked good and off they went. They were on airways, in Class II airspace for a while, overwater qualified, extra fuel for the weather, no problem.
On arrival, the captain took a closer look at the route (it was in the paper chart days) and it looked like they were in the ETOPS area of operation for a few minutes.
For the three ETOPS airlines I've worked for these areas were defined by hard mileages in the OPSPEC's, not estimated times corrected for winds.
And, in some 'theaters', the 60 minute mileage applies, in others (areas of benign neglect ) you can go to 75 minutes before you need ETOPS on a twin.
And, of course, the mileages themselves vary depending on what part of the world you are operating in.
Anyway, to help avoid the possibility of a future miscue in this situation, my colleague dutifully wrote an extensive report with recommendations to change the routine dispatch of this sector to ETOPS, at least during the monsoon season. After all, the aircraft, crews, dispatchers and maintenance were already ETOPS qualified.
He also filed an ASAP report and maybe a NASA form, I'm not sure.
Needless to say, the company self-reported the incident to the feds. He got a letter of investigation from the FAA and an 'informal' company ops hearing. ASAP said that since he signed the dispatch release and accepted the flight plan, it was a 'willful violation' and there was no immunity for the report. After a few stressful months, he and the FO were given a half day of remedial ground school with a couple of hours in the sim and the matter was closed.
My friend hasn't filed any of those reports since then.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: St. Charles, Missouri, USA
Age: 76
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If this aircraft was equipped with required HF radios, then I can understand crew confusion. Our airline operated 757's that were equipped domestic, over-water (non-ETOPS), and ETOPS....you had to watch out during last-minute equipment substitutions.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excellent post Airbubba. Focus again on how the holes in the cheese line-up. Mistakes by others all line-up and the Captain will get the final blame. Goes with the job I'm afraid. All others get a smack on the wrist but Boss Man can face dismissal. Tis why we get all this loot - eh ?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Captain is not at risk. Everyone else let him down.
If anything they'll be going to his house asking him if he'd find it within himself to be kind enough to serve them tea and biscuits.
If anything they'll be going to his house asking him if he'd find it within himself to be kind enough to serve them tea and biscuits.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course the Captain is at risk. Always. HE is the final arbiter and is finally responsible for the safety of his aircraft, contents and crew. Misd-Agin, you need to re-read some of the other posts highlighting this fact. Sign and accept the mission, you enter the lonely world of command. A fearsome responsibility not widely appreciated.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Captain is always at risk, until the facts are known and the correct assessment of responsibility is figured out. After that process, from everything that's known so far, in this case the Captain is not at fault. The natural reaction as a Captain is to say "how did he(Captain) do that?" With more information you can see how it happened. If anything it highlighted areas the union has complained about for the better part of a decade. It shouldn't have happened. Everyone agrees on that. It requires an internal assessment of how it happened and the corrective actions needed to prevent it from happening in the future.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Queensland
Posts: 408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Somebody is the final legal decision maker. If there is information clearly not available to the captain and it would be unreasonable for captain to seek out the information under the circumstances, I think responsibility can lie elsewhere.
If captain should have reasonably sought applicable information re aircraft status, then responsibility is more obvious. The importance of the status would fine tune the eventual degree of captain responsibility.
Captain's first ETOPS flight should have had him on a heightened awareness. If the complete paper trail did not show ETOPS status for the particular aircraft for that flight, it would be very difficult to defend proceeding with the flight.
The decision making process is to justify proceeding, not to justify a decision to not proceed.
If captain should have reasonably sought applicable information re aircraft status, then responsibility is more obvious. The importance of the status would fine tune the eventual degree of captain responsibility.
Captain's first ETOPS flight should have had him on a heightened awareness. If the complete paper trail did not show ETOPS status for the particular aircraft for that flight, it would be very difficult to defend proceeding with the flight.
The decision making process is to justify proceeding, not to justify a decision to not proceed.
Would it be too hard to put a placard on the panel or the glareshield that says ETOPS?????
Mis'dAgain you do sound rather confused. First you say the Captain is not at risk then you say the Captain is "always" at risk. Gosh, glad you are not on the enquiry board ! With hindsight & the famous 20/20 vision it brings to those in the air-conditioned offices full authority to suggest : "Well, we can see what you did & why you did it...............but.............we can't condone it ". Easy stuff eh. It is rarely a set-up but after being dropped in the poo by support staff errors, a Captain left holding the can (as he will and should) can look behind him and find the support staff long gone ! Airbubba's excellent post gives some insight into just that. Cover your backs lads & don't expect much support if you get it wrong.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gordomac - if you only quote a portion of the sentence the entire meaning changes. Nicely done.
I said the Captain is at risk...until the facts are known. Now that the facts are known he isn't at risk.
I said the Captain is at risk...until the facts are known. Now that the facts are known he isn't at risk.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by slowjet
Of course the Captain is at risk. Always. HE is the final arbiter and is finally responsible for the safety of his aircraft, contents and crew. Misd-Agin, you need to re-read some of the other posts highlighting this fact. Sign and accept the mission, you enter the lonely world of command. A fearsome responsibility not widely appreciated.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...
Originally Posted by smala01
Can someone help me understand what is the material difference of an A320 that IS and IS NOT ETOPS certified?
"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
Would it be too hard to put a placard on the panel or the glareshield that says ETOPS?????