Airbus oldy now a 737 newby………help!
Thread Starter
This so-far unnamed operator sounds like a bunch of bright minds who might insist on blanking the VNAV button, dis-allowing the use of auto-throttle, requiring round dials on NG to mimic TOS., and brutalize the anabolic MAX into operation with no differences training
Intellectually I frown at the 737, its sad that a few large operators have been so instrumental in holding Boeing back from employing technology they clearly have (787,777)
BUT, I am very happy that I have made the change and I cant wait to fly it.
Thread Starter
Hi all,
I was wondering if any pilots out there expert in ETOPS could provide some guidance regarding ETOPS diversion policy.
My previous type listed several system failures that would preclude flight beyond the ETOPS entry point.
I have not found a similar list of systems in any of our Boeing manuals.
For example, a generator failure in flight does not require you to land at the nearest suitable airport. You can continue trucking along the country for the entire flight.
However, you cannot be dispatched with this same failure on an ETOPS flight. Its a pretty obvious example and I think we all know what to do in this particular circumstance.
But, for lesser systems that are not so obvious, does Boeing provide guidance as to whether proceeding into an ETOPS area should or should not occur?
Cheers in advance
I was wondering if any pilots out there expert in ETOPS could provide some guidance regarding ETOPS diversion policy.
My previous type listed several system failures that would preclude flight beyond the ETOPS entry point.
I have not found a similar list of systems in any of our Boeing manuals.
For example, a generator failure in flight does not require you to land at the nearest suitable airport. You can continue trucking along the country for the entire flight.
However, you cannot be dispatched with this same failure on an ETOPS flight. Its a pretty obvious example and I think we all know what to do in this particular circumstance.
But, for lesser systems that are not so obvious, does Boeing provide guidance as to whether proceeding into an ETOPS area should or should not occur?
Cheers in advance
G’day oicur,
EDTO (ETOPS) is a planning exercise in probability and risk management written specifically by your company and aircraft type.
So, pre flight, if you already have failures, ie: Generator U/S, then you are already at a reduced redundancy point. The same for the weather/aerodrome, any issues pre flight can count them out.
Once airborne in a serviceable aircraft, with good enough weather, and enough approach aids, the probability of a failure that requires a diversion, ie: Land ASAP/ Land at nearest suitable, is considered using all the data collected over the years of previous operations.
For example, you are approaching you ETOPS entry point, you lose a GEN, start the APU, and continue. The probability of losing another GEN is extremely low.
So from my time on the 787, if it’s “Land at Nearest Suitable” in RED, then it’s time to divert, if it’s in Amber, continue.
I hope that helps.
EDTO (ETOPS) is a planning exercise in probability and risk management written specifically by your company and aircraft type.
So, pre flight, if you already have failures, ie: Generator U/S, then you are already at a reduced redundancy point. The same for the weather/aerodrome, any issues pre flight can count them out.
Once airborne in a serviceable aircraft, with good enough weather, and enough approach aids, the probability of a failure that requires a diversion, ie: Land ASAP/ Land at nearest suitable, is considered using all the data collected over the years of previous operations.
For example, you are approaching you ETOPS entry point, you lose a GEN, start the APU, and continue. The probability of losing another GEN is extremely low.
So from my time on the 787, if it’s “Land at Nearest Suitable” in RED, then it’s time to divert, if it’s in Amber, continue.
I hope that helps.
Thread Starter
hi all,
I would like to throw another question to the experts.
Flap Maneuvering Speed according to my company manuals (completely bastardized and no FCTM provided) is based upon aircraft weight and I assume the weight is from the data entered into the FMC.
Therefore, incorrect data entry would result in incorrect Flap Maneuver Speeds displayed on the speed tape after takeoff?
Therefore, an incorrect data entry would be evidenced by a reduced margin between Flap Maneuver Speed and Minimum Maneuver Speed?
Or am I barking up the wrong tree? Possibly in the wrong forrest?
Cheers for now.
I would like to throw another question to the experts.
Flap Maneuvering Speed according to my company manuals (completely bastardized and no FCTM provided) is based upon aircraft weight and I assume the weight is from the data entered into the FMC.
Therefore, incorrect data entry would result in incorrect Flap Maneuver Speeds displayed on the speed tape after takeoff?
Therefore, an incorrect data entry would be evidenced by a reduced margin between Flap Maneuver Speed and Minimum Maneuver Speed?
Or am I barking up the wrong tree? Possibly in the wrong forrest?
Cheers for now.
Both flap manoeuvring speed (1,5,15 etc) and minimum manoeuvring speed (amber band) are calculated by the FMC.
Therefore, an incorrect ZFW entry or a faulty fuel quantity input would cause both of these indications to be incorrect.
The stick shaker warning (red blocks) is not FMC generated - it comes from the SMYD unit using various sensory and configuration inputs, so it would still be correct.
Therefore, an incorrect ZFW entry or a faulty fuel quantity input would cause both of these indications to be incorrect.
The stick shaker warning (red blocks) is not FMC generated - it comes from the SMYD unit using various sensory and configuration inputs, so it would still be correct.
Hi all,
I was wondering if any pilots out there expert in ETOPS could provide some guidance regarding ETOPS diversion policy.
My previous type listed several system failures that would preclude flight beyond the ETOPS entry point.
I have not found a similar list of systems in any of our Boeing manuals.
For example, a generator failure in flight does not require you to land at the nearest suitable airport. You can continue trucking along the country for the entire flight.
However, you cannot be dispatched with this same failure on an ETOPS flight. Its a pretty obvious example and I think we all know what to do in this particular circumstance.
But, for lesser systems that are not so obvious, does Boeing provide guidance as to whether proceeding into an ETOPS area should or should not occur?
Cheers in advance
I was wondering if any pilots out there expert in ETOPS could provide some guidance regarding ETOPS diversion policy.
My previous type listed several system failures that would preclude flight beyond the ETOPS entry point.
I have not found a similar list of systems in any of our Boeing manuals.
For example, a generator failure in flight does not require you to land at the nearest suitable airport. You can continue trucking along the country for the entire flight.
However, you cannot be dispatched with this same failure on an ETOPS flight. Its a pretty obvious example and I think we all know what to do in this particular circumstance.
But, for lesser systems that are not so obvious, does Boeing provide guidance as to whether proceeding into an ETOPS area should or should not occur?
Cheers in advance
“any critical system failure precludes ETOPS operations and requires a diversion if within the ETOPS segment.
Critical system failure is:
- an engine failure
- only two AC power sources remaining
- hydraulic system failure that seriously restricts the operation of the aircraft.”
This has basically been the same across all twin jets I’ve flown with ETOPS capability.
Hope this helps!
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Ankh Morpork, DW
Posts: 652
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Both flap manoeuvring speed (1,5,15 etc) and minimum manoeuvring speed (amber band) are calculated by the FMC.
Therefore, an incorrect ZFW entry or a faulty fuel quantity input would cause both of these indications to be incorrect.
The stick shaker warning (red blocks) is not FMC generated - it comes from the SMYD unit using various sensory and configuration inputs, so it would still be correct.
Therefore, an incorrect ZFW entry or a faulty fuel quantity input would cause both of these indications to be incorrect.
The stick shaker warning (red blocks) is not FMC generated - it comes from the SMYD unit using various sensory and configuration inputs, so it would still be correct.
Thread Starter
Probably varies a little by type, however our company manuals state:
“any critical system failure precludes ETOPS operations and requires a diversion if within the ETOPS segment.
Critical system failure is:
- an engine failure
- only two AC power sources remaining
- hydraulic system failure that seriously restricts the operation of the aircraft.”
This has basically been the same across all twin jets I’ve flown with ETOPS capability.
Hope this helps!
“any critical system failure precludes ETOPS operations and requires a diversion if within the ETOPS segment.
Critical system failure is:
- an engine failure
- only two AC power sources remaining
- hydraulic system failure that seriously restricts the operation of the aircraft.”
This has basically been the same across all twin jets I’ve flown with ETOPS capability.
Hope this helps!
Thread Starter
