Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Tech Log
Reload this Page >

B.767 Single pack ETOPS limitation.

Wikiposts
Search
Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

B.767 Single pack ETOPS limitation.

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 13th Jan 2004, 02:11
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
B.767 Single pack ETOPS limitation.

Does your company Boeing 767 MEL preclude you from operating an ETOPS sector with one Air Conditioning Pack inop?
Zingaro is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2004, 03:37
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: West
Posts: 399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
No ETOPS with pack inop

The MEL precludes ETOPS with a pack inop.
None is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2004, 03:49
  #3 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Our MEL certainly precludes ETOPS and for good reason but was just curious. Returned from Cuba yesterday in this state and saw BA 767 sail by on diversion to Keflavik with fumes in cabin.
Zingaro is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2004, 09:19
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: West
Posts: 399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
What are the chances?

Zingaro,

Is it possible that I was talking with you near 20 West yesterday? Were you eastbound at FL300? I was the one that chimed in when I saw you," Hey, you're going the wrong way!" It sounds like it might have been you, because that jet was coming from Cuba after some serious delays due to a pack problem. We were also late.
None is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2004, 14:52
  #5 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Yep, that was us. R.Pack shut down on turnaround in Cayo Coco after arriving from Havana, so we decided to accept a non-etops return to Italy. Not the best of situations but allowable under the boeing MEL so practibable or probably my job on the line in todays happy working environment.
Must say the 277 passengers on board were the most obnoctious group of people I have ever met in my 20 year carreer.
After nearly 20 hours of duty-allowable under Italian FTLs(24 hours with our 3rd.crew member)- they had the courage to virtually spit in the faces of my cabin crew.
We regularly ply back and forth across the pond code-sharing with Cubana and apart from the odd smoker who refuses to obey the regs we have no problems, but yesterday was something else.
Still, didn't Greenland look spectacular! Your remark amused me and created a bit of mirth in what was a really heavy day.
Happy and safe flying, Zingaro.
Zingaro is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2004, 04:13
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: West
Posts: 399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
So then, I stated you should have one on me. What's your home base...I might be able to make good on that offer.

Last edited by None; 14th Jan 2004 at 10:30.
None is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2004, 05:10
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Haven't flown the 767 for a year now, but I remember my MEL saying that 1 pack could be inop for ETOPS not beyond 120 min. On top of this the QRH gave a max altitude of FL 350.
jtstream is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2004, 10:28
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: West
Posts: 399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
That is not consistent with the MEL for the operation I'm with. In the remarks section for this item it specifically states "except for ETOPs..." For non-ETOPS the altitude limit was FL320.
None is offline  
Old 15th Jan 2004, 22:35
  #9 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Latest Boeing MEL says " no etops and max FL350"
You can find me in Hotel Melia Havana most of the time.
Cheers, Zingaro.
Zingaro is offline  
Old 16th Jan 2004, 22:25
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: West
Posts: 399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
350 is correct

Looked it up again, and 350 is the correct altitude.
None is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.