QANTAS747-438
Topic Author
Posts: 1659
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2001 7:01 am

767-300 And Hawaii Ops

Sat Dec 05, 2009 7:58 am

I am looking for information on two scenarios:

1) Can a 767-300ER be weight restricted going LAX-HNL (2500mi) due to full freight to the point where they would leave behind 20-30 paxs? This scenario is presuming no weather issues enroute and average wind. Can the same happen with a 767-300 (non -ER)?

2) What would happen with a hypothetical flight if a 767-300ER were going LAX-HNL and there was a major weather system over all of Hawaii whereas there were no alternates for HNL? Would the flight use LAX/SFO as the alternate? Or would it not even take off in LAX, and just hold on the ground waiting for the wx to improve?

Thanks.
My posts/replies are strictly my opinion and not that of any company, organization, or Southwest Airlines.
 
BMI727
Posts: 11110
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: 767-300 And Hawaii Ops

Sat Dec 05, 2009 8:27 am



Quoting QANTAS747-438 (Thread starter):
1) Can a 767-300ER be weight restricted going LAX-HNL (2500mi) due to full freight to the point where they would leave behind 20-30 paxs? This scenario is presuming no weather issues enroute and average wind. Can the same happen with a 767-300 (non -ER)?

Well, just doing this quick and dirty (via Wikipedia) it says that the range at MTOW for a 767-300 is 3,950 NM and 5,975 NM for the -300ER. However, such a scenario could occur is if there is an issue with runway length. Even that would seem pretty unlikely to me since HA regularly operates 767s out of OGG (runway length 6,995 feet) to the West Coast without problems and most of the major airports on the West Coast have runway lengths well in excess of that, the major exceptions being SNA and perhaps SAN due to terrain.

Quoting QANTAS747-438 (Thread starter):
Would the flight use LAX/SFO as the alternate?

Not likely. Either they would stay on the ground or the other possible procedure is to just take two hours holding fuel along and be able to wait it out if necessary. I believe this is what LAN does on their flights to Easter Island.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
User avatar
longhauler
Posts: 4950
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:00 am

RE: 767-300 And Hawaii Ops

Sat Dec 05, 2009 1:19 pm



Quoting QANTAS747-438 (Thread starter):
Would the flight use LAX/SFO as the alternate?

While it may seem possible given the range capability of the B767-300ER, the biggest problem would be that you may well be overweight for the landing in Hawaii if you are carrying LAX/SFO alternate fuel.

In all of my years flying to Hawaii, I have never seen an occasion where there was not a legal alternate within the island chain. It is after all ... paradise.  Smile
Just because I stopped arguing, doesn't mean I think you are right. It just means I gave up!
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23088
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: 767-300 And Hawaii Ops

Sat Dec 05, 2009 2:28 pm

At MZFW (so full payload), a 767-300ER can tank around 4100nm worth of fuel before it reaches MTOW. So they should be able to carry a full payload by weight (cargo and passengers) plus enough fuel for their destination and alternates, and still be below MTOW and MLW (which is 145,000kg / 320,000lbs).
 
User avatar
longhauler
Posts: 4950
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:00 am

RE: 767-300 And Hawaii Ops

Sat Dec 05, 2009 4:48 pm

MZFW for our B767-300ERs is 130,634, and MLW is 145,149. (KGs)

So if you were operating at MZFW, you can carry no more than 14,515 Kgs of fuel at landing for a landing below MLW.

Using this example, that is more than enough for an alternate for HNL within the Hawaiian chain, but not enough for an alternate of LAX/SFO.
Just because I stopped arguing, doesn't mean I think you are right. It just means I gave up!
 
mrskyguy
Posts: 309
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2008 7:13 pm

RE: 767-300 And Hawaii Ops

Sat Dec 05, 2009 7:03 pm

Slightly off topic, have there ever been instances where aircraft flying SFO to Hawaii or LAX to Hawaii that lost an engine or suffered from other serious issues? Alaska runs ANC-Hawaii in a 738, and that flight just terrifies me. I can't imagine not having a diversion facility (especially from the west coast runs) to Hawaii if something serious occurred.

At least flights heading west from Hawaii have the atolls as emergency diversion fields..
"The strength of the turbulence is directly proportional to the temperature of your coffee." -- Gunter's 2nd Law of Air
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9606
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: 767-300 And Hawaii Ops

Sat Dec 05, 2009 7:42 pm



Quoting MrSkyGuy (Reply 5):
Slightly off topic, have there ever been instances where aircraft flying SFO to Hawaii or LAX to Hawaii that lost an engine or suffered from other serious issues?

Yes. Pan Am flight 6 lost two engines between Honolulu and San Francisco. The plane ditched near a coast guard cutter. That was back when the coast guard kept a plane half way between Hawaii and the US in case there was a problem.

Nowadays, with ETOPS, if an engine is lost, the plane is required to have enough fuel to fly on one engine.

Quoting MrSkyGuy (Reply 5):
Alaska runs ANC-Hawaii in a 738, and that flight just terrifies me. I can't imagine not having a diversion facility (especially from the west coast runs) to Hawaii if something serious occurred.

ANC-HNL is easier than the west coast since there are not significant winds to deal with.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
mrskyguy
Posts: 309
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2008 7:13 pm

RE: 767-300 And Hawaii Ops

Sat Dec 05, 2009 9:04 pm



Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 6):
Yes. Pan Am flight 6 lost two engines between Honolulu and San Francisco. The plane ditched near a coast guard cutter. That was back when the coast guard kept a plane half way between Hawaii and the US in case there was a problem.

Ahh yes, the Stratocruiser ditch. I recall reading about that. I was referring to aircraft in the jet age.. sorry for not being specific enough.
"The strength of the turbulence is directly proportional to the temperature of your coffee." -- Gunter's 2nd Law of Air
 
rolypolyman
Posts: 85
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 10:53 pm

RE: 767-300 And Hawaii Ops

Sun Dec 06, 2009 12:01 am

Sorry for the stupid question but can the 767 or any ETOPS twin really maintain altitude on one engine? Even near MTOW? I have a hard time grasping this as most 767s/777s seem to be running with N1 above 80 or 90% on climb/initial cruise. So can these planes do it all on one engine?
 
BMI727
Posts: 11110
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: 767-300 And Hawaii Ops

Sun Dec 06, 2009 1:33 am



Quoting Rolypolyman (Reply 8):
Sorry for the stupid question but can the 767 or any ETOPS twin really maintain altitude on one engine?

Not the same altitude they can on two engines but they can fly. This is, of course, accounted for. In fact, when someone talks about flying time for ETOPS, that is really flying time on one engine at 10,000 feet and an ETOPS flight must always have enough fuel onboard to reach an alternate while flying at 10,000 feet on either one or two engines, whichever uses more fuel.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
Viscount724
Posts: 18991
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: 767-300 And Hawaii Ops

Sun Dec 06, 2009 2:31 am



Quoting BMI727 (Reply 9):
Quoting Rolypolyman (Reply 8):
Sorry for the stupid question but can the 767 or any ETOPS twin really maintain altitude on one engine?

Not the same altitude they can on two engines but they can fly.

That's why twiin-engine aircraft can't use certain routes over the Himalayas with mountains up to 29,000 ft., since their maximum altitude with one engine out, especially at heavy weights, may be below the tops of the mountains. A 4-engine aircraft would probably not be subject to the same restrictions.

As one example, following is an excerpt from a Transport Canada daily incident report last March where a LH A330-300 had engine trouble over the Canadian Rockies, which fortunately are only about half as tall as the Himalayas. And that aircraft would have been fairly light at that point as it was only about 300 miles from SEA when the problem occurred.

The Lufthansa A330-300 aircraft (D-AIKE), operating as DLH490, was on a flight from Frankfurt to Seattle. While cruising at FL380 at 60 NM North of YNY (Enderby) VOR, the no. 2 engine (RR Trent 772) oil pressure decreased below minimum. The no. 2 thrust lever was reduced to idle. As the aircraft was now unable to maintain FL380 the crew requested lower and were cleared to FL210. The aircraft continued with the no. 2 engine operating at idle, and landed at Seattle without further event. The no. 2 engine is to be changed at Seattle.
 
User avatar
longhauler
Posts: 4950
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:00 am

RE: 767-300 And Hawaii Ops

Sun Dec 06, 2009 3:15 am



Quoting MrSkyGuy (Reply 5):
Alaska runs ANC-Hawaii in a 738, and that flight just terrifies me.

It is not as scary as it sounds.

With the loss of one engine, the other is advanced to Max Continuous Thrust. While the altitude you can maintain is probably not as high as your cruising altitude, you don't go 'plummetting' toward the earth. Your descent rate at your target speed (low if you have terrain to clear, fast if you are in a hurry, and somewhere in the middle if your profile has not yet been decided), will actually be quite low. So low in fact, that it may well be over an hour before you level off.

The whole ETOPS concept though, is not just the physical capability of the aircraft. In fact, our non ETOPS B767-200s were just as capable as our ETOPS B767-200s on one engine. Probably even more capable, as they tended to be lighter.

The ETOPS concept also includes the level of maintenance, the MEL restrictions, the fire detection and suppression equipment, the survival gear, etc etc.

In fact, the conecpt has been around long enough, and statistics have been gained that if an engine is lost out over the water, your biggest concern should be the diversion you will encounter .... NOT your personal safety. That is to say if an engine is lost on your YYZ-HKG flight, you may visit parts of Canada's arctic, or remote airfields in Russia, but you will never be at any risk to your personal safety.
Just because I stopped arguing, doesn't mean I think you are right. It just means I gave up!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Starlionblue and 13 guests