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 |
From the article in the link:
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 |
Easy, the Captain did. http://farm9.static.flickr.com/8764/...6b194d81_m.jpg |
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..............................!
|
ahhhhh yes the (dis)integrated ops centre....
|
Maybe AAL could take a leaf out of United's book: http://static.panoramio.com/photos/large/64476013.jpg 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. :O |
Whether it was there or not, it is required to be there.
|
Having said that I can't find an image of a New American liveried 757 with ETOPS on the nose gear doors. |
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.
|
From the article in the link: 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? :ok: |
American never purchased the narrow body Airbus - all of them are former USAir / America West fins.
|
Part 91?
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. :*
|
American never purchased the narrow body Airbus - all of them are former USAir / America West fins. |
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 ;))? |
Never having been an ETOPS operator, can someone explain what happens beyond the (convenient) PNR to suddenly make them realise they were non-ETOPS?
|
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. |
Airbubba:
Normally an ETOPS flight requires a special maintenance release, was this missed or was it inadvertently signed off on a non-ETOPS plane? |
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.
|
Originally Posted by misd-agin
(Post 9114473)
AA ETOPS Airbus' have ETOPS on the fuselage.
Photo: N133AN (CN: 6482) American Airlines Airbus A321-231 by Alex Brodkey Photoid: 8003369 - JetPhotos.Net |
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: American never purchased the narrow body Airbus - all of them are former USAir / America West fins. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 09:39. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.