American flies Non-ETOPS A321 to Hawaii
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: KSAN
Age: 62
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
American flies Non-ETOPS A321 to Hawaii
AA starting flying A321s to Hawaii recently - seems they accidentally dispatched a non-ETOPS model. It wasn't noticed until past the PNR.
Had to be ferried back empty.
Oops: American Accidentally Flies Wrong Plane To Hawaii - One Mile at a Time
Had to be ferried back empty.
Oops: American Accidentally Flies Wrong Plane To Hawaii - One Mile at a Time
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Up north
Posts: 1,657
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the article in the link:
Easy, the Captain did.
We can't fly steep approaches with aircraft not certified to for it, we can't fly CAT II/III approaches with aircraft not certified for it.....and we can't fly ETOPS sectors with aircraft not certified for it. Pretty simple. Having said that, it could probably happen to all of us considering they apparently have some A321s that are ETOPS certified and some that are not.
CP
I wonder who ended up taking the blame for that one!
We can't fly steep approaches with aircraft not certified to for it, we can't fly CAT II/III approaches with aircraft not certified for it.....and we can't fly ETOPS sectors with aircraft not certified for it. Pretty simple. Having said that, it could probably happen to all of us considering they apparently have some A321s that are ETOPS certified and some that are not.
CP
Dave , I think we all could. What a splendid idea. I once had a tech prob that led to an aircraft change. Replacement bird had unserviceable APU but we were still dispatched ETOPS. Because of previous experiences I was completely paranoid and remonstrated with dispatch about how I felt their latest attempt to drop me in the poo would not succeed. I was told by the fabbo CP to relax. No one was coming after me ! Mind you, you could paint "ETOPS" on a non-ETOPS plane in the hope that some rotter would fall for it ! Damn, here I go again...................................here come the trolls..............................!
Maybe AAL could take a leaf out of United's book:
Ok that is a US Airways craft but AA are the same I think.
Having said that I can't find an image of a New American liveried 757 with ETOPS on the nose gear doors.
Having said that I can't find an image of a New American liveried 757 with ETOPS on the nose gear doors.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: world
Posts: 3,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looking quickly through my own photos and those on a well known aviation photo site, the only American A321s with ETOPS displayed on them which I could find are the former USAir aircraft, including those now in AAL livery.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
From the article in the link:
Quote:
I wonder who ended up taking the blame for that one!
Easy, the Captain did.
Quote:
I wonder who ended up taking the blame for that one!
Easy, the Captain did.
Normally an ETOPS flight requires a special maintenance release, was this missed or was it inadvertently signed off on a non-ETOPS plane?
I heard it was 3 check airman that flew it there.
A lot of those folks write the books but some don't read them in my experience. When they blunder into a regulatory issue like this, with nobody hurt and nothing bent, typically their check airman letter is suspended for, say, six months. They teach sims, fly the plane and work on training materials (like a new ETOPS preflight bulletin) with little loss of pay.
In this case since all three pilots were probably similarly qualified, the punishment from the feds will probably be the same even though one is signed for the plane from a recent similar event I am familiar with.
And, at least they were already in position in HNL for the Part 91 non-ETOPS ferry back, right?
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: world
Posts: 3,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
American never purchased the narrow body Airbus - all of them are former USAir / America West fins.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Not likely to be a Part 91 but rather Part 121 issued ferry permit. The paperwork required for going from 121 to 91 and back to 121 is akin to a sex change.
It's been quite a while but I've certainly ferried a widebody Part 91 for a Part 121 carrier without a Part 121 ferry permit. At least I think I have.
The paperwork looks the pretty much the same except there is no signature line for the captain on the Part 91 dispatch release. I'll let the purists argue over whether you are actually dispatched in this instance.
I was thinking that you needed a ferry permit for certain maintenance problems but that you could carry an otherwise functional non-ETOPs twin overwater Part 91 empty without a permit. Even with the ferry permit, I believe the operation is considered Part 91 for crew rest and weather purposes.
But a lot of this stuff depends on the OPSPEC's and FOM for a particular carrier. Anybody know how AA does it (this week
)?
"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
Never having been an ETOPS operator, can someone explain what happens beyond the (convenient) PNR to suddenly make them realise they were non-ETOPS?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Facts -
AA has about 70+ Airbus'. Growing by 25-35 each year. That's not including LUS's Airbus'
It was two regular line pilots.
No, the Captain was not found at fault.
AA ETOPS Airbus' have ETOPS on the fuselage.
AA has about 70+ Airbus'. Growing by 25-35 each year. That's not including LUS's Airbus'
It was two regular line pilots.
No, the Captain was not found at fault.
AA ETOPS Airbus' have ETOPS on the fuselage.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airbubba:
I was working when our 767 fleet was the first to become ETOPs qualified. But, for each ETOPs flight, maintenance had to make an entry in the aircraft maintenance log that the ETOPs inspection and necessary maintence was completed.
Normally an ETOPS flight requires a special maintenance release, was this missed or was it inadvertently signed off on a non-ETOPS plane?
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Maryland
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can DEFINITELY go from 121 to 91 and back. You just can't carry passengers on the part 91 leg. I work for a carrier with about 200+ planes and we do this ALL THE TIME. Ferry permits still have their place in our ops, but part 91 repo is a near daily occurrence.
It's either in very, very small letters or only recently applied:
Photo: N133AN (CN: 6482) American Airlines Airbus A321-231 by Alex Brodkey Photoid: 8003369 - JetPhotos.Net
Photo: N133AN (CN: 6482) American Airlines Airbus A321-231 by Alex Brodkey Photoid: 8003369 - JetPhotos.Net
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: world
Posts: 3,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Today's flight was operated by N127AA. Unfortunately the most recent photos I can find date back to June this year. They certainly don't show any indication of ETOPS on the exterior paintwork. Perhaps, as Dave R suggests, it is a very recent addition.
J.O. said:
According to Airbus the order was signed by AMERICAN AIRLINES July 20th, 2011.
J.O. said:
American never purchased the narrow body Airbus - all of them are former USAir / America West fins.
Last edited by Hotel Tango; 12th Sep 2015 at 19:23.