Is this really an emergency - ETOPS
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1
Likes: 2
From: nowhere
Is this really an emergency - ETOPS
The American Airlines Boeing 767 (N389AA) was en route from Chicago O'Hare (KORD) to London Heathrow (EGLL). While en route and at 5030N 045W the crew were conducting the required check of the crossfeed system prior to the ETOPS portion of the flight and determined that the left main fuel pump low pressure lights did not illuminate with the pump switches in the off position nor was there an EICAS warning. After discussion with maintenance, the flight declared an emergency and requested a diversion to John F. Kennedy (KJFK) where it landed safely. Maintenance conducted an operational test of the engine fuel feed system and all tested normal. The aircraft was returned to service.
Joined: Nov 1999
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
From: Here, there and everywhere
Is this really an emergency - ETOPS
The aircraft would not have been able to continue with its ETOPS routing as the cross feed is an item that must be functional. Fuel allowing a non ETOPS re route could be considered, failing that a diversion would be required. Only people who know the full scenario were the crew involved. Maybe other factors existed.
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
From: Home soon
Emergency?i doubt...maybe company procedure.
I am not aware the switching off of pumps is required to do a crossfeed test..
Was it the engine driven fuel pump or electrical pump annunciator not working?
I am not aware the switching off of pumps is required to do a crossfeed test..
Was it the engine driven fuel pump or electrical pump annunciator not working?
Last edited by de facto; 25th May 2014 at 11:26.
Guest
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
From: On the Beach
flying changes:
I suspect that varies from operator to operator. It is an "emergency" operation of the airplane. My company did not tell us to "declare." We were required to enter it in the aircraft log that we did an overweight landing and whether the landing was normal or hard.
We were also required to fill out a company form for pilot's use of emergency authority.
Overweight landing requires declaration of emergency.
We were also required to fill out a company form for pilot's use of emergency authority.
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
From: Houston
ETOPS Emergency
Evidently, this procedure at 30W was a specific OpsSpec requirement for that airline. We have no such procedure in our OpsSpec. Whatever the OpsSpec says you have to do in ETOPS, you have to abide by that. So, emergency to some, not an emergency to others.
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
From: dallas
Emergency landing
I am on the 787 but I think only certain 767 aircraft can jettison fuel. An overweight landing might have been required. At American Airlines an overweight landing is a mandatory emergency declaration.
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
From: UK
Most likely the declaration of an emergency is because they were in Oceanic airspace outside radar coverage. To do a turn back requires a set of procedures to be followed, which can lead to a loss of procedural separation from other flights. By declaring an emergency, it will mean the crews will receive priority from the HF radio operators and the ATC staff in charge of that piece of airspace.
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 461
Likes: 1
From: A tropical island.
So it sounds like the system WAS operational... just the pump was not turning off and/or the indication was malfunctioning.
If I have that correct I highly doubt it would be considered an emergency or worth turning back for. What it is, however, is an opportunity for AA pilots to cost the company money, something they've taken every opportunity to do due to their ongoing union v company issues.
If I have that correct I highly doubt it would be considered an emergency or worth turning back for. What it is, however, is an opportunity for AA pilots to cost the company money, something they've taken every opportunity to do due to their ongoing union v company issues.
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
From: dunno
1) crew checks systems prior entry into ETOPS area as per FAA
2) check is not ok so cannot enter said area
3) only way to get out of NATS OTS is declaring emergency (as noted above by NATS)
4) there was no "LAND AT THE NEAREST SUITABLE AIRPORT" so crew flew to JFK in coordination with their OPS
5) who says you are not allowed to divert to JFK or other busy airport?
6) if PIC would have carried on and FAA found out, PIC could have been fined and AA lost ETOPS thus costing millions of $
7) non event
2) check is not ok so cannot enter said area
3) only way to get out of NATS OTS is declaring emergency (as noted above by NATS)
4) there was no "LAND AT THE NEAREST SUITABLE AIRPORT" so crew flew to JFK in coordination with their OPS
5) who says you are not allowed to divert to JFK or other busy airport?
6) if PIC would have carried on and FAA found out, PIC could have been fined and AA lost ETOPS thus costing millions of $
7) non event
Joined: Sep 2003
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 956
Likes: 68
From: away from home
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 2,627
Likes: 2
From: UTC +8
single chime . . .
6) if PIC would have carried on and FAA found out, PIC could have been fined and AA lost ETOPS thus costing millions of $
