American flies Non-ETOPS A321 to Hawaii
Resident insomniac
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: N54 58 34 W02 01 21
Age: 79
Posts: 1,873
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The absence of an ETOPS sign wouldn't be conclusive - you cannot prove a negative (unless a check for such indication was part of a checklist).
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The absence of an ETOPS sign wouldn't be conclusive - you cannot prove a negative (unless a check for such indication was part of a checklist).
ETOPS may be new on the AA A321 fleet but American has operated earlier ETOPS planes like B-767's and A306's for well over two decades I would say.
On the other hand, domestic and international (including overwater to HNL) operations are often like having two separate airlines within the same carrier.
A lot of the domestic folks never venture out over the water. And international folks like me are terrified when they takeoff and land without having to clear customs.
So, the A321 crews may have had something like a day of fire hose ground school, a sim session and a line check as their total ETOPS training and experience.
And, American just completed merging operations with US Air so the paperwork may have been new even if the pilots had, say, flown the ETOPS B-762's or A330's out of CLT or PHL.
A lot of chances for an operational mistake, glad to hear the captain didn't get hanged for this one.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Jose
Posts: 727
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The absence of an ETOPS sign wouldn't be conclusive - you cannot prove a negative (unless a check for such indication was part of a checklist).
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
What sim session?? Not required.
ETOPS training flight? Not required.
ETOPS training flight? Not required.
At some places I'm told the training is indeed minimal.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Netherlands
Age: 46
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Misdagain : yes, thanks, and apologies. I see what you mean now. Never much good at English, that is why my first career choices were (1) Lawyer, (2)Politician. Also, never had the privilage of flying under FAA rules. In the UK, at the time, dispatchers were not licenced. All the support staff did their best and offered up a service from which the Captain made the final decisions and was held culpable.Unless these guys were ex mill, liked boats and had funny hand-shakes, in the UK, they would have been flamed !
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Asia
Age: 62
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From a safety system perspective this kind of error simply should not happen. Maybe that's why so much media interest. It flies in the face of the attention to safety the industry purports.
As for fail-safe signage, firstly signage should not be the primary defence. Some kind of system lockout that prevents entering a flight plan that is inconsistent with the aircraft's certification is an obvious primary defence.
The most fail-safe signage system is to have signs indicating both ETOPS and NON-ETOPS using colour coding (can be black on white or white on black). No sign means pilot must regard the aircraft as NON-ETOPS and confirm. Although there should be a prior check which means an aircraft without a sign cannot go into service.
These things are not hard, they are safety 101.
As for fail-safe signage, firstly signage should not be the primary defence. Some kind of system lockout that prevents entering a flight plan that is inconsistent with the aircraft's certification is an obvious primary defence.
The most fail-safe signage system is to have signs indicating both ETOPS and NON-ETOPS using colour coding (can be black on white or white on black). No sign means pilot must regard the aircraft as NON-ETOPS and confirm. Although there should be a prior check which means an aircraft without a sign cannot go into service.
These things are not hard, they are safety 101.
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely there is no such thing as "the most failsafe"...
Something either fails safe or it doesn't.
If no ETOPS signage = no flight then any failure to provide the required signage would result in a safe condition, i.e. no flight!
Of course, the presence of signage alone could never ensure that any required human processes, such as checks and maintenance, had been completed. Which is why signage should only really be relied upon as an additional layer of protection.
Something either fails safe or it doesn't.
If no ETOPS signage = no flight then any failure to provide the required signage would result in a safe condition, i.e. no flight!
Of course, the presence of signage alone could never ensure that any required human processes, such as checks and maintenance, had been completed. Which is why signage should only really be relied upon as an additional layer of protection.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: USofA
Posts: 1,235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Misd-Agin...
Simply not true. Suggest you read over AC120-42B and familiarize yourself with this AC. If you think the FAA will issue you OpSpecs for ETOPS without an approved training program you're mistaken. While it is true that the FTD can be used in lieu of a full flight sim, that is rarely done.
Also most if not all airlines use a check airman on at least the first two ETOPS legs. Who do you fly for that turn a crew lose on the N Atlantic for the first time without any line assist Remind me to avoid them in the future.
Simply not true. Suggest you read over AC120-42B and familiarize yourself with this AC. If you think the FAA will issue you OpSpecs for ETOPS without an approved training program you're mistaken. While it is true that the FTD can be used in lieu of a full flight sim, that is rarely done.
Also most if not all airlines use a check airman on at least the first two ETOPS legs. Who do you fly for that turn a crew lose on the N Atlantic for the first time without any line assist Remind me to avoid them in the future.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Bangkok
Age: 49
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, bud leon's point makes the absolute most sense and there can be zero argument if you understand anything about systems design - which is hardly a field isolated to the airline industry. If you're operating a system with a clear constraint that costs a huge amount of money to build and operate then when you try to violate that clear constraint it should, at minimum, say, "Don't do that, here's why. Are you sure you want to do that?"
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spooky - it's spooky how you're getting ETOPS, NATS, and Hawaii qualification all mixed up.
Of course the training program is FAA approved. Who said it wasn't?
Could you find the section of the AC you refered to that requires a simulator session and two ETOPS legs with a CKA before you can fly to Hawaii and post it?
I just checked our ops spec and it doesn't exist. I also asked a CKA if a Hawaii ETOPS checkout was required. The answer he gave was no. But rather than just rely on his word I checked our FAA manual. The CKA was right, there are many ways to get the requirement waived.
Of course the training program is FAA approved. Who said it wasn't?
Could you find the section of the AC you refered to that requires a simulator session and two ETOPS legs with a CKA before you can fly to Hawaii and post it?
I just checked our ops spec and it doesn't exist. I also asked a CKA if a Hawaii ETOPS checkout was required. The answer he gave was no. But rather than just rely on his word I checked our FAA manual. The CKA was right, there are many ways to get the requirement waived.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: USofA
Posts: 1,235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well as the guys at Boeing Tech are fond of saying, "ETOPS is ETOPS is ETOPS".
I should have known the NAT thing would have confused you
Regardless of what ocean or remote part of the world your operating over, ETOPS is basically the same be it 120, 180, or beyond. Freight operators have some leeway.
Like RVSM there is no one set of regs that covers all operations and thus a lot of it is left to the individual FAA POI's oversight. There is an Opspec for the NAT, CEP, NoPac, SoPac, Polar, AMU, along with an ETOPS OpSpec. The CEP is rather benign so maybe you're operation is slightly different, but I doubt it. Care to tell us what kind of operation that is, PAX, FRT?
I should have known the NAT thing would have confused you
Regardless of what ocean or remote part of the world your operating over, ETOPS is basically the same be it 120, 180, or beyond. Freight operators have some leeway.Like RVSM there is no one set of regs that covers all operations and thus a lot of it is left to the individual FAA POI's oversight. There is an Opspec for the NAT, CEP, NoPac, SoPac, Polar, AMU, along with an ETOPS OpSpec. The CEP is rather benign so maybe you're operation is slightly different, but I doubt it. Care to tell us what kind of operation that is, PAX, FRT?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We're talking about aircrew ETOPS certification. I'd guess that Boeing has little input into crew certification requirements. I've never heard MX differentiate ETOPS between different arenas. We just verify the sign-off.
I work for a small regional airline operating out of N. Texas. Fleet size is around 965 a/c.
I work for a small regional airline operating out of N. Texas. Fleet size is around 965 a/c.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: USofA
Posts: 1,235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, if you actually work for American I guess you're part of the problem here
Actually Boeing, Airbus, ICAO EASA, JAA, FAA and few others have a lot to say about flight crew quals. Individual operators can make inputs to the final regulatory oversight and often do. I would guess that Boeing along with Airbus are the leaders in this arena.
I still remain doubtful regarding AA releasing a pilot for any International/ETOPS operations without the benefit of any further training. The fact that they can do this without a sim validation while possible speaks volumes about AA.
So are you also telling me that AA would launch the same crew on the N Atlantic under similar conditions or is that something else?
Actually Boeing, Airbus, ICAO EASA, JAA, FAA and few others have a lot to say about flight crew quals. Individual operators can make inputs to the final regulatory oversight and often do. I would guess that Boeing along with Airbus are the leaders in this arena.
I still remain doubtful regarding AA releasing a pilot for any International/ETOPS operations without the benefit of any further training. The fact that they can do this without a sim validation while possible speaks volumes about AA.
So are you also telling me that AA would launch the same crew on the N Atlantic under similar conditions or is that something else?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NATS is a higher qualification. That requires a 2 flight CKA checkout.
Hawaii is lower and doesn't require a specific checkout.
So the FAA approved program means you could do a MIA-SJU flight and you're now qualified into C. America, S. America(not mountain cities which are individual special qualification airports), the Caribbean and Hawaii.
Hawaii is lower and doesn't require a specific checkout.
So the FAA approved program means you could do a MIA-SJU flight and you're now qualified into C. America, S. America(not mountain cities which are individual special qualification airports), the Caribbean and Hawaii.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: formally Alamo battleground, now the crocodile with palm trees!
Posts: 960
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So the FAA approved program means you could do a MIA-SJU flight and you're now qualified into C. America, S. America(not mountain cities which are individual special qualification airports), the Caribbean and Hawaii.
Before the aircraft logbook format changed (due to the merger), it had a decal that stated the aircraft's restriction, e.g. 162NM, EOW, etc. Now, it only states Overwater Equipped which probably led to this cluster ...
Sadly, I have seen quite a bit of good LUS procedures disappear because they don't seem to meet the reAAL standard.
(silence is golden)
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
NATS is a higher qualification. That requires a 2 flight CKA checkout.
Hawaii is lower and doesn't require a specific checkout.
Hawaii is lower and doesn't require a specific checkout.
I can see where a NATS ETOPS course and check out would be good for Hawaii and the NOPAC at many carriers.
So the FAA approved program means you could do a MIA-SJU flight and you're now qualified into C. America, S. America(not mountain cities which are individual special qualification airports), the Caribbean and Hawaii.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apples and oranges getting mixed together here. The ground school covers all arenas. ETOPS is covered. Hawaii is covered. Neither require a flight checkout. Cross reference chart, and CKA, both state that an ETOPS, or Hawaii flight, is not required before flying to Hawaii.
Without digging into manuals I think the logbooks have nothing(overland only), limited overwater(ie 162nm) or overwater.
We're using LUS procedures that leave us scratching our head so it cuts both ways.
Hawaii is ETOPS but the crew is not required to qualify (fly with CKA) into that division. NATS is ETOPS and requires a division checkout. No other division qualification allows the NATS qualification to be waived. Other division quals(ie NATS, Caribbean) do allow the Hawaii checkout to be waived.
MIA-SJU is not ETOPS. No ETOPS requirements. Without digging into the MEL I'd say the toughest MEL requirement ranking is - ETOPS/NATS, S. America, Caribbean and then domestic.
Without digging into manuals I think the logbooks have nothing(overland only), limited overwater(ie 162nm) or overwater.
We're using LUS procedures that leave us scratching our head so it cuts both ways.
Hawaii is ETOPS but the crew is not required to qualify (fly with CKA) into that division. NATS is ETOPS and requires a division checkout. No other division qualification allows the NATS qualification to be waived. Other division quals(ie NATS, Caribbean) do allow the Hawaii checkout to be waived.
MIA-SJU is not ETOPS. No ETOPS requirements. Without digging into the MEL I'd say the toughest MEL requirement ranking is - ETOPS/NATS, S. America, Caribbean and then domestic.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't feel like reading ~ 100 posts...
So, did we ever figure out the answer to these two questions:
-- How that ship number was offered to the pilots of the flight to take
...and...
-- Why the pilots took it?
That's what we've been discussing, right?
-- How that ship number was offered to the pilots of the flight to take
...and...
-- Why the pilots took it?
That's what we've been discussing, right?