KLASM83 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 657 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 4443 times:
What a nice, new way to think of ETOPS. I hear that some airlines currently at ETOPS 180 may try to get ETOPS 207, provided that they can supply PAX with enough Pepto-Bismol and Kaopectate per person. Generally it is 1.5 times the total seats on the airplane, but I'll ask my professor once I go to Air Transport today.
LongHauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 5873 posts, RR: 43
Reply 5, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3769 times:
In the Minimum Equipment List, we have charts to aid in making the decision before departure. It is just common sense, taking into account; flight length, number of passengers, time of day, route (yes route! some ethnicities pee more than others I guess) and the location of the inop lav.
During flight, it is more or less left up to crew discretion with the aid of SOC, (System Operations Control).
Considerations are maintenance facilities ... not just at a diversion point, but at the destination. If you were flying to a remote place, where maintenance facilities were not available, then it might be better to turn back!
I have only ever made a "lav diversion" once ... flying from YVR to YYZ, and all of the lavs become inop, and nothing we could do brought them back ... we landed in YYC.
Once flying a YYZ-TPA flight, we found the lavs inop due to a frozen water system. The aircraft originated that day in YQT and overnighted on a cold winter day. We let the passengers vote .. and they voted to continue as we were only about 1:20 from landing. Of course we made the obligatory "you can do Number 1, but not Number 2 PA!"
Just because I stopped arguing, doesn't mean I think you are right. It just means I gave up!