Is this really an emergency - ETOPS
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: nowhere
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Here, there and everywhere
Age: 65
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Home soon
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Overweight landing requires declaration of emergency.
And if so, did the aircraft not have fuel jettison?
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Houston
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: May 2014
Location: dallas
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: A tropical island.
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cloud 9
Posts: 2,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As busy as it is would JFK accept a diversion were it not an emergency?
i.e. Did they declare an emergency just to be able to divert to where they had a maintenance base?
i.e. Did they declare an emergency just to be able to divert to where they had a maintenance base?
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: dunno
Age: 52
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 $
