Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
BravoOne
Posts: 4094
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:27 pm

Re: FAA acted improperly in approving WN Hawaii flying

Thu Jan 23, 2020 3:12 pm

Cubsrule wrote:
kiowa wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:

Maybe I'm missing something here, but given that the inspectors assigned to WN necessarily don't have a lot of ETOPS experience, isn't bringing in outsiders to help with ETOPS certifications likely both necessary and desirable?


Although I like the idea of bringing outside FAA people in to observe and evaluate rather than the local ones with a cozy history with Southwest, putting non-type rated pilots to evaluate is absurd and shoud never have happened. It would be like an pediatric doctor evaluating the skills of a knee replacement by an orthopedic surgeon. They both went to medical school but the evaluation would be worthless.

If the FAA really did "lower the bar" in order for Southwest to pass as the WSJ says, that would be very wrong. This is especially true as safety has been compromised with the entire 737 MAX relationship Boeing has had with the FAA.


I understand the sentiment, but is there any part of an ETOPS verification flight that would require a type rating in the relevant aircraft for acceptable evaluation?



I have participated in one ETOPS Validation flight and as I recall we had the following FAA airline personnel onboard.

Principal Maintenance Manager
Principal Avionics Manager
Principal Operations Manager
2 Cabin Safety Inspectors
Dispatch Inspector to monitor the flight planning, flight following process.

We had a number of people onboard to falicitate the cabin experience. All airline employees for his flight.

There may have been other supporting staff, but this was about 20 years ago.

I seem to recall that SWA hired the individual that oversaw the Alaska Ailrines ETOPS program. One would think they would have guided SWA around the mine field without many surprises.
 
nagpaw
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2017 7:32 pm

Re: Report: FAA acted improperly in approving WN Hawaii flying

Thu Jan 23, 2020 3:27 pm

mcdu wrote:
Proof? Use google. Read the news stories. Visit the pilot forums. WN failed the table top exercise more than once. They had a lot of issues in getting certified for ETOPS.

This whistleblower report seems to agree with the facts of the period.



So, you don't have any proof, then :D

I just used Google to search for news about SWA failing the tabletops exercise. All I can find are posts from Airline Pilot Central and Airliners.net, which are hardly better than crew lounge gossip sites (wait...they are crew lounge gossip sites!) Most everything else seems to reference SWA being delayed by the government shutdown. Now, I haven't read each article yet, and I probably won't. So...again...proof?

BTW (and I'm not being condescending here) what's the big deal about failing a tabletop exercise? Did anyone die? Don't many people fail their CFI orals their first time around? Does that make them an incompetent buffoon forever?
 
usflyguy
Posts: 1757
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 7:29 am

Re: Report: FAA acted improperly in approving WN Hawaii flying

Thu Jan 23, 2020 3:42 pm

nagpaw wrote:
mcdu wrote:
Proof? Use google. Read the news stories. Visit the pilot forums. WN failed the table top exercise more than once. They had a lot of issues in getting certified for ETOPS.

This whistleblower report seems to agree with the facts of the period.



So, you don't have any proof, then :D

I just used Google to search for news about SWA failing the tabletops exercise. All I can find are posts from Airline Pilot Central and Airliners.net, which are hardly better than crew lounge gossip sites (wait...they are crew lounge gossip sites!) Most everything else seems to reference SWA being delayed by the government shutdown. Now, I haven't read each article yet, and I probably won't. So...again...proof?

BTW (and I'm not being condescending here) what's the big deal about failing a tabletop exercise? Did anyone die? Don't many people fail their CFI orals their first time around? Does that make them an incompetent buffoon forever?


Don’t waste your time... he’ll just dig in deeper. Never adds anything of substance to conversations regarding WN.
My post is my ideas and my opinions only, I do not represent the ideas or opinions of anyone else or company.
 
kiowa
Posts: 760
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 12:37 am

Re: FAA acted improperly in approving WN Hawaii flying

Thu Jan 23, 2020 3:52 pm

Cubsrule wrote:
mcdu wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:

I understand the sentiment, but is there any part of an ETOPS verification flight that would require a type rating in the relevant aircraft for acceptable evaluation?


Airplanes differ in systems and how they operate in the 180 etops area required for Hawaii flying. Eg A 777 doesn’t need an APU available as it can be deferred for 180 but a 737 would need to run the APU the entire flight. Some operators have APU on demand for 180 but don’t think a new ETOPS operator would be approved. A 757 or 767 needs the APU available but not required to run entire flight like a 737.

That’s just the electrical system. Also divert speeds for ETOPS is aircraft specific.

So yes a type rating would be a worthy rating.

I think we see more clearly why WN doesn’t want an IOSA audit. The things under the surface are scary in how WN cuts corners and applies pressure.


A type rating is necessary to evaluate whether a pilot runs to APU or the airspeed at which she flies? Again, let's go back to my question: is there any part of an ETOPS verification flight that would require a type rating in the relevant aircraft for acceptable evaluation?


I believe that anyone doing an evaluation in any field should be at least as qualified as the person they’re evaluating. That just makes sense to me. I would think it would be especially true if the company had busted multiple table top exercises prior to the enroute evaluation.
 
smokeybandit
Posts: 1388
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 3:24 pm

Re: Accusation: FAA acted improperly in approving WN Hawaii flying

Thu Jan 23, 2020 4:16 pm

Something like this that someone blows a whistle on usually is due to a financial gain or chance of huge financial loss on the part of one party or the other.

What exactly did either side gain or risk losing here?
 
mcdu
Posts: 1644
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 5:23 am

Re: FAA acted improperly in approving WN Hawaii flying

Thu Jan 23, 2020 4:26 pm

Cubsrule wrote:
mcdu wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:

I understand the sentiment, but is there any part of an ETOPS verification flight that would require a type rating in the relevant aircraft for acceptable evaluation?


Airplanes differ in systems and how they operate in the 180 etops area required for Hawaii flying. Eg A 777 doesn’t need an APU available as it can be deferred for 180 but a 737 would need to run the APU the entire flight. Some operators have APU on demand for 180 but don’t think a new ETOPS operator would be approved. A 757 or 767 needs the APU available but not required to run entire flight like a 737.

That’s just the electrical system. Also divert speeds for ETOPS is aircraft specific.

So yes a type rating would be a worthy rating.

I think we see more clearly why WN doesn’t want an IOSA audit. The things under the surface are scary in how WN cuts corners and applies pressure.


A type rating is necessary to evaluate whether a pilot runs to APU or the airspeed at which she flies? Again, let's go back to my question: is there any part of an ETOPS verification flight that would require a type rating in the relevant aircraft for acceptable evaluation?



If you can’t understand the need and nuances of a specific types requirements for ETOPS based on those examples I gave you then you will never be convinced. I’m willing to see what the final report says.

An ETOPS divert is different for every airplane and the systems and MEL requirements are different for every airplane. Choosing to lower the bar to get to the finish line is hazardous.

Of course my skepticism about WN compliance isn't applicable to anything other than my desire to see them exposed for what they truly are. It is the FAA that WN should be concerned about and the deep dive that is inevitable unless more $$$ is given to make this go away.
Last edited by mcdu on Thu Jan 23, 2020 4:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 14572
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

Re: FAA acted improperly in approving WN Hawaii flying

Thu Jan 23, 2020 4:46 pm

mcdu wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:
mcdu wrote:

Airplanes differ in systems and how they operate in the 180 etops area required for Hawaii flying. Eg A 777 doesn’t need an APU available as it can be deferred for 180 but a 737 would need to run the APU the entire flight. Some operators have APU on demand for 180 but don’t think a new ETOPS operator would be approved. A 757 or 767 needs the APU available but not required to run entire flight like a 737.

That’s just the electrical system. Also divert speeds for ETOPS is aircraft specific.

So yes a type rating would be a worthy rating.

I think we see more clearly why WN doesn’t want an IOSA audit. The things under the surface are scary in how WN cuts corners and applies pressure.


A type rating is necessary to evaluate whether a pilot runs to APU or the airspeed at which she flies? Again, let's go back to my question: is there any part of an ETOPS verification flight that would require a type rating in the relevant aircraft for acceptable evaluation?



If you can’t understand the need and nuances of a specific types requirements for ETOPS based on those examples I gave you then you will never be convinced. I’m willing to see what the final report says.

An ETOPS divert is different for every airplane and the systems and MEL requirements are different for every airplane. Choosing to lower the bar to get to the finish line is hazardous.


You're still not answering the question. Obviously every type (and every operator) has specific nuances for ETOPS. But why is a type rating required to evaluate whether a pilot complies with the type requirements? You or I - neither of whom holds a 737 type rating - could very easily sit in the cockpit and monitor airspeed.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
mcdu
Posts: 1644
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 5:23 am

Re: FAA acted improperly in approving WN Hawaii flying

Thu Jan 23, 2020 4:55 pm

Cubsrule wrote:
mcdu wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:

A type rating is necessary to evaluate whether a pilot runs to APU or the airspeed at which she flies? Again, let's go back to my question: is there any part of an ETOPS verification flight that would require a type rating in the relevant aircraft for acceptable evaluation?



If you can’t understand the need and nuances of a specific types requirements for ETOPS based on those examples I gave you then you will never be convinced. I’m willing to see what the final report says.

An ETOPS divert is different for every airplane and the systems and MEL requirements are different for every airplane. Choosing to lower the bar to get to the finish line is hazardous.


You're still not answering the question. Obviously every type (and every operator) has specific nuances for ETOPS. But why is a type rating required to evaluate whether a pilot complies with the type requirements? You or I - neither of whom holds a 737 type rating - could very easily sit in the cockpit and monitor airspeed.


I do hold a type rating in the 737. Why because that person monitoring needs to know the systems of the airplane. Suppose WN wrote that they need not run the APU for 180 ETOPS and the observer didn't know the 737 lacks a stby nav, an HMG or alternate electrical power. This observer could very well allow them to do something that would be illegal if they were not adapt to the systems of the airplane.

As for divert speeds the FMC is different in the various types and how you set up the offset, descent and cruising level when you are in the divert scenario.

It would be as applicable if I were to be an obersever on a E175 getting an ETOPS certification if that is even possible. I know the rules for ETOPS ops but I don't have a clue how they configure the airplane to comply.
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 14572
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

Re: FAA acted improperly in approving WN Hawaii flying

Thu Jan 23, 2020 5:08 pm

mcdu wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:
mcdu wrote:


If you can’t understand the need and nuances of a specific types requirements for ETOPS based on those examples I gave you then you will never be convinced. I’m willing to see what the final report says.

An ETOPS divert is different for every airplane and the systems and MEL requirements are different for every airplane. Choosing to lower the bar to get to the finish line is hazardous.


You're still not answering the question. Obviously every type (and every operator) has specific nuances for ETOPS. But why is a type rating required to evaluate whether a pilot complies with the type requirements? You or I - neither of whom holds a 737 type rating - could very easily sit in the cockpit and monitor airspeed.


I do hold a type rating in the 737. Why because that person monitoring needs to know the systems of the airplane. Suppose WN wrote that they need not run the APU for 180 ETOPS and the observer didn't know the 737 lacks a stby nav, an HMG or alternate electrical power. This observer could very well allow them to do something that would be illegal if they were not adapt to the systems of the airplane.

As for divert speeds the FMC is different in the various types and how you set up the offset, descent and cruising level when you are in the divert scenario.

It would be as applicable if I were to be an obersever on a E175 getting an ETOPS certification if that is even possible. I know the rules for ETOPS ops but I don't have a clue how they configure the airplane to comply.


The folks onboard are monitoring compliance with what WN has written, not what WN has written. I agree fully that evaluation of the procedures themselves requires deep understanding of 737 systems, but that's not what we are discussing here.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
User avatar
TVNWZ
Posts: 2269
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2006 9:28 am

Re: Accusation: FAA acted improperly in approving WN Hawaii flying

Thu Jan 23, 2020 5:22 pm

wjcandee wrote:
TVNWZ wrote:
BarneyCaptain should weigh in....


He's too smart to comment on an article that dumb.


So, I made popcorn for nothing? Darn.
 
bob75013
Posts: 996
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2015 5:05 pm

Re: FAA acted improperly in approving WN Hawaii flying

Thu Jan 23, 2020 5:42 pm

mcdu wrote:

Of course my skepticism about WN compliance isn't applicable to anything other than my desire to see them exposed for what they truly are. .


Thank you for clarifying your position.
 
mcdu
Posts: 1644
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 5:23 am

Re: Accusation: FAA acted improperly in approving WN Hawaii flying

Thu Jan 23, 2020 6:02 pm

TVNWZ wrote:
wjcandee wrote:
TVNWZ wrote:
BarneyCaptain should weigh in....


He's too smart to comment on an article that dumb.


So, I made popcorn for nothing? Darn.


Or perhaps the facts outweigh the bluster? Again this is the WSJ in business since 1889. They have integrity and a reputation for quality reporting. WN has a reputation of FAA fines, cozy relationships that resulted in reassignment of inspectors, bending the rules and forgoing automation and advanced flight deck safety features until a crash. Of course they also are famous for the captain and his 3G stuck mic tirade.
 
BravoOne
Posts: 4094
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:27 pm

Re: FAA acted improperly in approving WN Hawaii flying

Thu Jan 23, 2020 6:03 pm

mcdu wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:
mcdu wrote:


If you can’t understand the need and nuances of a specific types requirements for ETOPS based on those examples I gave you then you will never be convinced. I’m willing to see what the final report says.

An ETOPS divert is different for every airplane and the systems and MEL requirements are different for every airplane. Choosing to lower the bar to get to the finish line is hazardous.


You're still not answering the question. Obviously every type (and every operator) has specific nuances for ETOPS. But why is a type rating required to evaluate whether a pilot complies with the type requirements? You or I - neither of whom holds a 737 type rating - could very easily sit in the cockpit and monitor airspeed.


I do hold a type rating in the 737. Why because that person monitoring needs to know the systems of the airplane. Suppose WN wrote that they need not run the APU for 180 ETOPS and the observer didn't know the 737 lacks a stby nav, an HMG or alternate electrical power. This observer could very well allow them to do something that would be illegal if they were not adapt to the systems of the airplane.

As for divert speeds the FMC is different in the various types and how you set up the offset, descent and cruising level when you are in the divert scenario.

It would be as applicable if I were to be an obersever on a E175 getting an ETOPS certification if that is even possible. I know the rules for ETOPS ops but I don't have a clue how they configure the airplane to comply.



An Engine Out Driftdown is the same for either ETOPS or over land assuming that terrain is not a factor. In other words it's proceduraly the same and the data displayed remains the same either way. Of course it can be modified if need be but one would assume it somewhere between 350/360 Its. To make 180 work you need the higher speeds.

If the SWA POM or his/her designate was onboard you can be sure he/she is rated in the 737 and intimately familiar with SWA 737 operations.
 
bob75013
Posts: 996
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2015 5:05 pm

Re: Accusation: FAA acted improperly in approving WN Hawaii flying

Thu Jan 23, 2020 6:05 pm

mcdu wrote:
TVNWZ wrote:
wjcandee wrote:

He's too smart to comment on an article that dumb.


So, I made popcorn for nothing? Darn.


Or perhaps the facts outweigh the bluster? Again this is the WSJ in business since 1889. They have integrity and a reputation for quality reporting. WN has a reputation of FAA fines, cozy relationships that resulted in reassignment of inspectors, bending the rules and forgoing automation and advanced flight deck safety features until a crash. Of course they also are famous for the captain and his 3G stuck mic tirade.



Didn't you tell us that WN's Hawaii service was sure to fail because none of the natives wanted WN in the islands?
 
txjim
Posts: 263
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 1:44 pm

Re: Report: FAA acted improperly in approving WN Hawaii flying

Thu Jan 23, 2020 8:12 pm

mcdu wrote:
JAAlbert wrote:
I'm surprised to hear allegations that the FAA rushed the approval, since it seemed to take Southwest years to get its Hawaii routes up and running!


It took them years because they kept failing in the process. They failed the table top exercise on more than one occasion.

This is not surprising to anyone in the industry that doesn’t work for WN.

And, this comment is not surprising given it comes from mcdu!
 
User avatar
KanaHawaii
Posts: 186
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2016 9:43 pm

Re: Accusation: FAA acted improperly in approving WN Hawaii flying

Thu Jan 23, 2020 9:24 pm

Oustide of the fact that the article was paper thin on details, what bothers me is that the WSJ, I suspect, is basically making a soundbite out of a lecture when it comes to this subject, and calling that the entire picture.

Until I see the report publically put out or otherwise made available, with the detail technical issues that may be at issue, I would simply say that the report is nothing more than clickbait. Being the subject to guessing of whom is behind it. The whistle blower could be anyone from the boogeyman to a Hawaiian Airlines flight attendant. A person who voted to strike but knows full well that the reason they are not getting the highest paid salary in the industry is because SWA is taking HAL to lunch.
 
User avatar
airportugal310
Posts: 3670
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2004 12:49 pm

Re: Accusation: FAA acted improperly in approving WN Hawaii flying

Thu Jan 23, 2020 9:27 pm

KanaHawaii wrote:
Oustide of the fact that the article was paper thin on details, what bothers me is that the WSJ, I suspect, is basically making a soundbite out of a lecture when it comes to this subject, and calling that the entire picture.

Until I see the report publically put out or otherwise made available, with the detail technical issues that may be at issue, I would simply say that the report is nothing more than clickbait, subject to the guessing of whom is behind it spanning from the boogeyman to a Hawaiian Airlines flight attendant who voted to strike but knows full well that the reason they are not getting the highest paid salary in the industry is because SWA is taking HAL to lunch.


Weird flex...
“They bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into. I say, let 'em crash.”
 
mcdu
Posts: 1644
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 5:23 am

Re: FAA acted improperly in approving WN Hawaii flying

Thu Jan 23, 2020 11:50 pm

BravoOne wrote:
mcdu wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:

You're still not answering the question. Obviously every type (and every operator) has specific nuances for ETOPS. But why is a type rating required to evaluate whether a pilot complies with the type requirements? You or I - neither of whom holds a 737 type rating - could very easily sit in the cockpit and monitor airspeed.


I do hold a type rating in the 737. Why because that person monitoring needs to know the systems of the airplane. Suppose WN wrote that they need not run the APU for 180 ETOPS and the observer didn't know the 737 lacks a stby nav, an HMG or alternate electrical power. This observer could very well allow them to do something that would be illegal if they were not adapt to the systems of the airplane.

As for divert speeds the FMC is different in the various types and how you set up the offset, descent and cruising level when you are in the divert scenario.

It would be as applicable if I were to be an obersever on a E175 getting an ETOPS certification if that is even possible. I know the rules for ETOPS ops but I don't have a clue how they configure the airplane to comply.



An Engine Out Driftdown is the same for either ETOPS or over land assuming that terrain is not a factor. In other words it's proceduraly the same and the data displayed remains the same either way. Of course it can be modified if need be but one would assume it somewhere between 350/360 Its. To make 180 work you need the higher speeds.

If the SWA POM or his/her designate was onboard you can be sure he/she is rated in the 737 and intimately familiar with SWA 737 operations.


ETOPS driftdown and divert are not the same as domestic operation. You have to know what the track procedures are for that specific AOA. Do you turn 45 degrees off track? do you offset 5nm? How low is the lowest track if you need to make a 180 degree turn back. Also The ETOPS fuel requirements provide for specifics at the alternate, go around, hold, icing enroute etc. The reserves also must be suitable for a loss of engine and pressurization at the ETP. There are significant differences in how you plan a etops divert versus dropping into Lubbock for a gas and go.

Your simplistic view of ETOPS might be what was causing issue with WN qualification if you actually work for WN. Just because you see other airlines conduct ETOPS doesn’t mean it is easy.
 
BravoOne
Posts: 4094
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:27 pm

Re: FAA acted improperly in approving WN Hawaii flying

Fri Jan 24, 2020 12:36 am

mcdu wrote:
BravoOne wrote:
mcdu wrote:

I do hold a type rating in the 737. Why because that person monitoring needs to know the systems of the airplane. Suppose WN wrote that they need not run the APU for 180 ETOPS and the observer didn't know the 737 lacks a stby nav, an HMG or alternate electrical power. This observer could very well allow them to do something that would be illegal if they were not adapt to the systems of the airplane.

As for divert speeds the FMC is different in the various types and how you set up the offset, descent and cruising level when you are in the divert scenario.

It would be as applicable if I were to be an obersever on a E175 getting an ETOPS certification if that is even possible. I know the rules for ETOPS ops but I don't have a clue how they configure the airplane to comply.



An Engine Out Driftdown is the same for either ETOPS or over land assuming that terrain is not a factor. In other words it's proceduraly the same and the data displayed remains the same either way. Of course it can be modified if need be but one would assume it somewhere between 350/360 Its. To make 180 work you need the higher speeds.

If the SWA POM or his/her designate was onboard you can be sure he/she is rated in the 737 and intimately familiar with SWA 737 operations.


ETOPS driftdown and divert are not the same as domestic operation. You have to know what the track procedures are for that specific AOA. Do you turn 45 degrees off track? do you offset 5nm? How low is the lowest track if you need to make a 180 degree turn back. Also The ETOPS fuel requirements provide for specifics at the alternate, go around, hold, icing enroute etc. The reserves also must be suitable for a loss of engine and pressurization at the ETP. There are significant differences in how you plan a etops divert versus dropping into Lubbock for a gas and go.

Your simplistic view of ETOPS might be what was causing issue with WN qualification if you actually work for WN. Just because you see other airlines conduct ETOPS doesn’t mean it is easy.



I agree with much of your assessment but the fact remains that the key strokes are the same for the EO maneuver regardless of where you are at. The fact that you need to turn off the track and airway are basic airmanship issues. Not sure where you came up with the 5NM offset? Most all of what have listed is a function of the CFP and the crew does not calculate that data.

I don't work for SWA, but I have written and taught ETOPS and Polar Ops for a large company in the NW for the last ten years. In short I have forgotten more about International Ops. ETOPS and Polar ops than are likely to ever know. Sorry I tried to make simple for someone like yourself. My sincere apologies. BTW, EO drift down is accomplished the same way, be it over the Sahara or NAT. Don't make it over complicated. Also, many 737NG have a stand by nav function if the airlines opts to buy it.

How low is the lowest track if you need to make a 180 degree turn back? Can you expand on that? Maybe I'm missing something in the AC 120.42C. Probably something lost in the translation.
 
mcdu
Posts: 1644
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 5:23 am

Re: FAA acted improperly in approving WN Hawaii flying

Fri Jan 24, 2020 1:54 am

BravoOne wrote:
mcdu wrote:
BravoOne wrote:


An Engine Out Driftdown is the same for either ETOPS or over land assuming that terrain is not a factor. In other words it's proceduraly the same and the data displayed remains the same either way. Of course it can be modified if need be but one would assume it somewhere between 350/360 Its. To make 180 work you need the higher speeds.

If the SWA POM or his/her designate was onboard you can be sure he/she is rated in the 737 and intimately familiar with SWA 737 operations.


ETOPS driftdown and divert are not the same as domestic operation. You have to know what the track procedures are for that specific AOA. Do you turn 45 degrees off track? do you offset 5nm? How low is the lowest track if you need to make a 180 degree turn back. Also The ETOPS fuel requirements provide for specifics at the alternate, go around, hold, icing enroute etc. The reserves also must be suitable for a loss of engine and pressurization at the ETP. There are significant differences in how you plan a etops divert versus dropping into Lubbock for a gas and go.

Your simplistic view of ETOPS might be what was causing issue with WN qualification if you actually work for WN. Just because you see other airlines conduct ETOPS doesn’t mean it is easy.



I agree with much of your assessment but the fact remains that the key strokes are the same for the EO maneuver regardless of where you are at. The fact that you need to turn off the track and airway are basic airmanship issues. Not sure where you came up with the 5NM offset? Most all of what have listed is a function of the CFP and the crew does not calculate that data.

I don't work for SWA, but I have written and taught ETOPS and Polar Ops for a large company in the NW for the last ten years. In short I have forgotten more about International Ops. ETOPS and Polar ops than are likely to ever know. Sorry I tried to make simple for someone like yourself. My sincere apologies. BTW, EO drift down is accomplished the same way, be it over the Sahara or NAT. Don't make it over complicated. Also, many 737NG have a stand by nav function if the airlines opts to buy it.

How low is the lowest track if you need to make a 180 degree turn back? Can you expand on that? Maybe I'm missing something in the AC 120.42C. Probably something lost in the translation.


You teach ETOPS you are aren’t familiar with the revision that took place in the NATS and WATRS AOA. You would know about the 5nm offset and the no 180 until below the lowest track. WN operates in the WATRS area. They might want to know these things.

Does WN have stand by NAV? If so what powers the system? Maybe someone with a type rating on a WN plane would be beneficial in an ETOPS certification.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10356
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Accusation: FAA acted improperly in approving WN Hawaii flying

Fri Jan 24, 2020 2:12 am

In any event, during an ETOPS qualification flight the crew and the FAA monitors will be using checklist, which were previously agreed and approved between the FAA and WN based on FAA and WN procedures and Boeing ETOPS requirements.
If a type rated pilot is not in the cockpit at the very minimum it will be someone familiar with the checklist and the ability to verify compliance.

Now if the claim was that they falsified the checklist it becomes irrelevant who was in the cockpit...
 
BravoOne
Posts: 4094
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:27 pm

Re: FAA acted improperly in approving WN Hawaii flying

Fri Jan 24, 2020 2:29 am

mcdu wrote:
BravoOne wrote:
mcdu wrote:

ETOPS driftdown and divert are not the same as domestic operation. You have to know what the track procedures are for that specific AOA. Do you turn 45 degrees off track? do you offset 5nm? How low is the lowest track if you need to make a 180 degree turn back. Also The ETOPS fuel requirements provide for specifics at the alternate, go around, hold, icing enroute etc. The reserves also must be suitable for a loss of engine and pressurization at the ETP. There are significant differences in how you plan a etops divert versus dropping into Lubbock for a gas and go.

Your simplistic view of ETOPS might be what was causing issue with WN qualification if you actually work for WN. Just because you see other airlines conduct ETOPS doesn’t mean it is easy.



I agree with much of your assessment but the fact remains that the key strokes are the same for the EO maneuver regardless of where you are at. The fact that you need to turn off the track and airway are basic airmanship issues. Not sure where you came up with the 5NM offset? Most all of what have listed is a function of the CFP and the crew does not calculate that data.

I don't work for SWA, but I have written and taught ETOPS and Polar Ops for a large company in the NW for the last ten years. In short I have forgotten more about International Ops. ETOPS and Polar ops than are likely to ever know. Sorry I tried to make simple for someone like yourself. My sincere apologies. BTW, EO drift down is accomplished the same way, be it over the Sahara or NAT. Don't make it over complicated. Also, many 737NG have a stand by nav function if the airlines opts to buy it.

How low is the lowest track if you need to make a 180 degree turn back? Can you expand on that? Maybe I'm missing something in the AC 120.42C. Probably something lost in the translation.


You teach ETOPS you are aren’t familiar with the revision that took place in the NATS and WATRS AOA. You would know about the 5nm offset and the no 180 until below the lowest track. WN operates in the WATRS area. They might want to know these things.

Does WN have stand by NAV? If so what powers the system? Maybe someone with a type rating on a WN plane would be beneficial in an ETOPS certification.



I was just going to reply but was called to dinner. Yes I know where you dragged the 5 NM from...now. We don't teach WATRS data sine it is beyond the scope of our lessons. Most, if not all want to see the NAT which as you know is revised almost every six months. I doubt that SWA has bought the Standby Nav feature. Mostly a BBJ feature. Please tell us the 180 below ?? Once your below RVSM, you can go direct anywhere.
While you are at it, what airplane are you flying and in what airspace. (AOA)
 
mcdu
Posts: 1644
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 5:23 am

Re: FAA acted improperly in approving WN Hawaii flying

Fri Jan 24, 2020 7:02 am

BravoOne wrote:
mcdu wrote:
BravoOne wrote:


I agree with much of your assessment but the fact remains that the key strokes are the same for the EO maneuver regardless of where you are at. The fact that you need to turn off the track and airway are basic airmanship issues. Not sure where you came up with the 5NM offset? Most all of what have listed is a function of the CFP and the crew does not calculate that data.

I don't work for SWA, but I have written and taught ETOPS and Polar Ops for a large company in the NW for the last ten years. In short I have forgotten more about International Ops. ETOPS and Polar ops than are likely to ever know. Sorry I tried to make simple for someone like yourself. My sincere apologies. BTW, EO drift down is accomplished the same way, be it over the Sahara or NAT. Don't make it over complicated. Also, many 737NG have a stand by nav function if the airlines opts to buy it.

How low is the lowest track if you need to make a 180 degree turn back? Can you expand on that? Maybe I'm missing something in the AC 120.42C. Probably something lost in the translation.


You teach ETOPS you are aren’t familiar with the revision that took place in the NATS and WATRS AOA. You would know about the 5nm offset and the no 180 until below the lowest track. WN operates in the WATRS area. They might want to know these things.

Does WN have stand by NAV? If so what powers the system? Maybe someone with a type rating on a WN plane would be beneficial in an ETOPS certification.



I was just going to reply but was called to dinner. Yes I know where you dragged the 5 NM from...now. We don't teach WATRS data sine it is beyond the scope of our lessons. Most, if not all want to see the NAT which as you know is revised almost every six months. I doubt that SWA has bought the Standby Nav feature. Mostly a BBJ feature. Please tell us the 180 below ?? Once your below RVSM, you can go direct anywhere.
While you are at it, what airplane are you flying and in what airspace. (AOA)


If you want to further discuss ETOPS we can do that in another thread. I believe you have proved succinctly that a type rating is required to fully understand the rules of the AOA and systems of the aircraft to fully validate ETOPs qualification. Thanks for making my point with the lack of knowledge. I do hope you are not teaching ETOPS to WN crews.
 
mcdu
Posts: 1644
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 5:23 am

Re: Accusation: FAA acted improperly in approving WN Hawaii flying

Fri Jan 24, 2020 12:30 pm

bob75013 wrote:
mcdu wrote:
TVNWZ wrote:

So, I made popcorn for nothing? Darn.


Or perhaps the facts outweigh the bluster? Again this is the WSJ in business since 1889. They have integrity and a reputation for quality reporting. WN has a reputation of FAA fines, cozy relationships that resulted in reassignment of inspectors, bending the rules and forgoing automation and advanced flight deck safety features until a crash. Of course they also are famous for the captain and his 3G stuck mic tirade.




Didn't you tell us that WN's Hawaii service was sure to fail because none of the natives wanted WN in the islands?


For every person here saying WN is great I’ve heard the opposite. My neighborhood in OGG is mixed with people who have tried WN and most say it was a one time trial. Not enough benefit to be a loyal WN customer. Giving the tickets away helped with filling the planes. Based on the yearly report giving away your product does not help the bottom line.

Maybe the FAA could rescind the ETOPS authorization and make WN get a new approval. That would free up some planes in the mean time so they can reconnect that money maker ALB to RDU service. <tic>
 
saab2000
Posts: 1232
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2001 6:19 pm

Re: Accusation: FAA acted improperly in approving WN Hawaii flying

Fri Jan 24, 2020 1:04 pm

mcdu wrote:
For every person here saying WN is great I’ve heard the opposite. My neighborhood in OGG is mixed with people who have tried WN and most say it was a one time trial. Not enough benefit to be a loyal WN customer. Giving the tickets away helped with filling the planes. Based on the yearly report giving away your product does not help the bottom line.

Maybe the FAA could rescind the ETOPS authorization and make WN get a new approval. That would free up some planes in the mean time so they can reconnect that money maker ALB to RDU service. <tic>


I'll fly all day, every day from ALB to RDU if it pays the bills, and apparently flights like this do pay the bills because SWA just recorded yet another profitable year. If your neighbors don't like SWA that's their prerogative. There are many choices. The airplanes I operate are full of people who seem to like what the company offers. It's not for everyone. So be it.

I'm anxiously awaiting my profit sharing to be deposited.


It is a mystery to me why there are fanboys and haters of airlines or airplanes on this site. It is just a business and I've been in it almost 25 years. I learned that my personal happiness is not enhanced when I get emotionally involved in a company or airplane. It is a job in a for-profit business and I look forward to setting the parking brake a final time in the future and walking away from it.
smrtrthnu
 
kiowa
Posts: 760
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 12:37 am

Re: Accusation: FAA acted improperly in approving WN Hawaii flying

Fri Jan 24, 2020 2:27 pm

mcdu wrote:
bob75013 wrote:
mcdu wrote:

Or perhaps the facts outweigh the bluster? Again this is the WSJ in business since 1889. They have integrity and a reputation for quality reporting. WN has a reputation of FAA fines, cozy relationships that resulted in reassignment of inspectors, bending the rules and forgoing automation and advanced flight deck safety features until a crash. Of course they also are famous for the captain and his 3G stuck mic tirade.




Didn't you tell us that WN's Hawaii service was sure to fail because none of the natives wanted WN in the islands?


For every person here saying WN is great I’ve heard the opposite. My neighborhood in OGG is mixed with people who have tried WN and most say it was a one time trial. Not enough benefit to be a loyal WN customer. Giving the tickets away helped with filling the planes. Based on the yearly report giving away your product does not help the bottom line.

Maybe the FAA could rescind the ETOPS authorization and make WN get a new approval. That would free up some planes in the mean time so they can reconnect that money maker ALB to RDU service. <tic>


I don’t believe I have ever heard of the FAA rescinding etops authorization to an airline. Could they just put Southwest airlines on a more routine supervision kind of like probation?
 
BravoOne
Posts: 4094
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:27 pm

Re: FAA acted improperly in approving WN Hawaii flying

Fri Jan 24, 2020 3:35 pm

mcdu wrote:
BravoOne wrote:
mcdu wrote:

You teach ETOPS you are aren’t familiar with the revision that took place in the NATS and WATRS AOA. You would know about the 5nm offset and the no 180 until below the lowest track. WN operates in the WATRS area. They might want to know these things.

Does WN have stand by NAV? If so what powers the system? Maybe someone with a type rating on a WN plane would be beneficial in an ETOPS certification.



I was just going to reply but was called to dinner. Yes I know where you dragged the 5 NM from...now. We don't teach WATRS data sine it is beyond the scope of our lessons. Most, if not all want to see the NAT which as you know is revised almost every six months. I doubt that SWA has bought the Standby Nav feature. Mostly a BBJ feature. Please tell us the 180 below ?? Once your below RVSM, you can go direct anywhere.
While you are at it, what airplane are you flying and in what airspace. (AOA)


If you want to further discuss ETOPS we can do that in another thread. I believe you have proved succinctly that a type rating is required to fully understand the rules of the AOA and systems of the aircraft to fully validate ETOPs qualification. Thanks for making my point with the lack of knowledge. I do hope you are not teaching ETOPS to WN crews.


Seem to have gotten sidetracked here regarding SWA ETOPS operations on the Central Eastern Pacific. This discussion should be limited to that and that only since that is what the whistleblower referenced in his/her complaint. Some how you jumped from the CEP to the NAT and PBCS operations therein with a little dab of WATARS thrown in.

To be clear, I have nothing to do with SWA, much less having taught any ETOPS to their crews. Also just to keep the issue defined, you need to eliminate as much of your own prejudices regarding SWA. unless you have some deep knowledge otherwise I suspect they will do just fine. Suspect that you might be a Hawaiian pilot and if so you may recall that they also failed one of their initial 767 ETOPS validation flights?

You are commingling international operations with ETOPS and that is a very common error amongst some folks. ETOPS and the CEP, NoPac, SoPac, Polar Ops are all separate OpSecs .The NAT PBCS airspace is covered by ICAO Doc 007, while Polar Ops and ETOPS are both covered by an FAA Advisory Circular 120-42B, and 42C if they ever get it published.

More than willing to share what I have with you since you seem to have an interest, but I no longer have access to My Boeing Fleet and since much of that is/was proprietary my hands are somewhat tied.

BTW, Boeing offer an On Demand APU option for the 737NG and one would think that this would be a high priority for any 737 ETOPS operator. I’m pretty sure Alaska is using it at this time.
 
User avatar
KanaHawaii
Posts: 186
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2016 9:43 pm

Re: Accusation: FAA acted improperly in approving WN Hawaii flying

Fri Jan 24, 2020 7:19 pm

mcdu wrote:
bob75013 wrote:
mcdu wrote:

Or perhaps the facts outweigh the bluster? Again this is the WSJ in business since 1889. They have integrity and a reputation for quality reporting. WN has a reputation of FAA fines, cozy relationships that resulted in reassignment of inspectors, bending the rules and forgoing automation and advanced flight deck safety features until a crash. Of course they also are famous for the captain and his 3G stuck mic tirade.




Didn't you tell us that WN's Hawaii service was sure to fail because none of the natives wanted WN in the islands?


For every person here saying WN is great I’ve heard the opposite. My neighborhood in OGG is mixed with people who have tried WN and most say it was a one time trial. Not enough benefit to be a loyal WN customer. Giving the tickets away helped with filling the planes. Based on the yearly report giving away your product does not help the bottom line.

Maybe the FAA could rescind the ETOPS authorization and make WN get a new approval. That would free up some planes in the mean time so they can reconnect that money maker ALB to RDU service. <tic>


The concept of WN's service is very different from what the people of Hawaii have become used to. But let's not forget that history suggests that at one time, the type of service on Southwest was the same level of service that Aloha provided. Back in the 70's and 80's, there was no assigned seating on those flights and every plane had the same kind of seat - there was no first class or tourist sections. You got your ticket (or in many cases, coupons) went to the airport, got a boarding pass, and jumped on the plane.

When deregulation occurred, and that service was tantamount to profits, that is when you started to see Aloha and Hawaiian do the whole assigned seating, first class/tourist class thing. What Southwest represents in this is literally a modification to what we had in the past...buy a ticket, jump on a plane and care more about getting there then the details of how.
 
Antarius
Posts: 2512
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2017 1:27 pm

Re: Accusation: FAA acted improperly in approving WN Hawaii flying

Fri Jan 24, 2020 7:42 pm

mcdu wrote:
For every person here saying WN is great I’ve heard the opposite. My neighborhood in OGG is mixed with people who have tried WN and most say it was a one time trial. Not enough benefit to be a loyal WN customer. Giving the tickets away helped with filling the planes. Based on the yearly report giving away your product does not help the bottom line.


So you're basically grinding an axe here.

No one is forcing you to fly WN. But let's not act like their safety record (which, like it or not, is statistically excellent) is pure dumb luck.
2020: SFO DFW IAH HOU CLT MEX BIS MIA GUA ORD DTW LGA BOS LHR DUB BFS BHD STN OAK PHL ISP JFK SJC DEN SJU LAS TXL GDL
 
kiowa
Posts: 760
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 12:37 am

Re: Accusation: FAA acted improperly in approving WN Hawaii flying

Fri Jan 24, 2020 9:02 pm

Antarius wrote:
mcdu wrote:
For every person here saying WN is great I’ve heard the opposite. My neighborhood in OGG is mixed with people who have tried WN and most say it was a one time trial. Not enough benefit to be a loyal WN customer. Giving the tickets away helped with filling the planes. Based on the yearly report giving away your product does not help the bottom line.


So you're basically grinding an axe here.

No one is forcing you to fly WN. But let's not act like their safety record (which, like it or not, is statistically excellent) is pure dumb luck.


Statistically, you could say that 50% of all the airline flights in the United States in the last 5 years that have had a fatality have involved Southwest. You could also say that 100% of the US major airline deaths in the last 5 years have been on Southwest. Statistics are interesting things eh?
 
Antarius
Posts: 2512
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2017 1:27 pm

Re: Accusation: FAA acted improperly in approving WN Hawaii flying

Fri Jan 24, 2020 11:34 pm

kiowa wrote:
Antarius wrote:
mcdu wrote:
For every person here saying WN is great I’ve heard the opposite. My neighborhood in OGG is mixed with people who have tried WN and most say it was a one time trial. Not enough benefit to be a loyal WN customer. Giving the tickets away helped with filling the planes. Based on the yearly report giving away your product does not help the bottom line.


So you're basically grinding an axe here.

No one is forcing you to fly WN. But let's not act like their safety record (which, like it or not, is statistically excellent) is pure dumb luck.


Statistically, you could say that 50% of all the airline flights in the United States in the last 5 years that have had a fatality have involved Southwest. You could also say that 100% of the US major airline deaths in the last 5 years have been on Southwest. Statistics are interesting things eh?


You could say all these things.. although by hiding the actual data, quite disingenuous. I guess I like to look at statistics in good faith.
2020: SFO DFW IAH HOU CLT MEX BIS MIA GUA ORD DTW LGA BOS LHR DUB BFS BHD STN OAK PHL ISP JFK SJC DEN SJU LAS TXL GDL
 
DanniS
Posts: 36
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2020 6:35 pm

Re: Accusation: FAA acted improperly in approving WN Hawaii flying

Fri Jan 24, 2020 11:39 pm

kiowa wrote:
Antarius wrote:
mcdu wrote:
For every person here saying WN is great I’ve heard the opposite. My neighborhood in OGG is mixed with people who have tried WN and most say it was a one time trial. Not enough benefit to be a loyal WN customer. Giving the tickets away helped with filling the planes. Based on the yearly report giving away your product does not help the bottom line.


So you're basically grinding an axe here.

No one is forcing you to fly WN. But let's not act like their safety record (which, like it or not, is statistically excellent) is pure dumb luck.


Statistically, you could say that 50% of all the airline flights in the United States in the last 5 years that have had a fatality have involved Southwest. You could also say that 100% of the US major airline deaths in the last 5 years have been on Southwest. Statistics are interesting things eh?

Statistically you could honestly say zero happened on Southwest. Now, if you want to look at portion of flights involving fatalities originating in the U.S. for the last five years, Southwest pilots were flying 2 out of 17. Over the last 20? 3 out of 400.
 
FlyHossD
Posts: 2100
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 3:45 pm

Re: FAA acted improperly in approving WN Hawaii flying

Sat Jan 25, 2020 3:33 am

Cubsrule wrote:
A type rating is necessary to evaluate whether a pilot runs to APU or the airspeed at which she flies? Again, let's go back to my question: is there any part of an ETOPS verification flight that would require a type rating in the relevant aircraft for acceptable evaluation?


First, to a large degree, I agree with you that a type rating isn't necessarily required.

Yet, why not have a type rated FAA Air Safety Inspector in the jumpseat for Southwest's ETOPS flights to Hawaii? It's not like there's a shortage of them available on the west coast. Don't AA, AS and UA fly 737s from the coast to Hawaii? Who better would know what's right and what's not?
My statements do not represent my former employer or my current employer and are my opinions only.
 
BravoOne
Posts: 4094
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:27 pm

Re: FAA acted improperly in approving WN Hawaii flying

Sat Jan 25, 2020 3:45 pm

mcdu wrote:
BravoOne wrote:
mcdu wrote:

ETOPS driftdown and divert are not the same as domestic operation. You have to know what the track procedures are for that specific AOA. Do you turn 45 degrees off track? do you offset 5nm? How low is the lowest track if you need to make a 180 degree turn back. Also The ETOPS fuel requirements provide for specifics at the alternate, go around, hold, icing enroute etc. The reserves also must be suitable for a loss of engine and pressurization at the ETP. There are significant differences in how you plan a etops divert versus dropping into Lubbock for a gas and go.

Your simplistic view of ETOPS might be what was causing issue with WN qualification if you actually work for WN. Just because you see other airlines conduct ETOPS doesn’t mean it is easy.



I agree with much of your assessment but the fact remains that the key strokes are the same for the EO maneuver regardless of where you are at. The fact that you need to turn off the track and airway are basic airmanship issues. Not sure where you came up with the 5NM offset? Most all of what have listed is a function of the CFP and the crew does not calculate that data.

I don't work for SWA, but I have written and taught ETOPS and Polar Ops for a large company in the NW for the last ten years. In short I have forgotten more about International Ops. ETOPS and Polar ops than are likely to ever know. Sorry I tried to make simple for someone like yourself. My sincere apologies. BTW, EO drift down is accomplished the same way, be it over the Sahara or NAT. Don't make it over complicated. Also, many 737NG have a stand by nav function if the airlines opts to buy it.

How low is the lowest track if you need to make a 180 degree turn back? Can you expand on that? Maybe I'm missing something in the AC 120.42C. Probably something lost in the translation.


You teach ETOPS you are aren’t familiar with the revision that took place in the NATS and WATRS AOA. You would know about the 5nm offset and the no 180 until below the lowest track. WN operates in the WATRS area. They might want to know these things.

Does WN have stand by NAV? If so what powers the system? Maybe someone with a type rating on a WN plane would be beneficial in an ETOPS certification.



What does AOA stand for? The way you have inserted into this discussion does not make sense?
 
mcdu
Posts: 1644
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 5:23 am

Re: FAA acted improperly in approving WN Hawaii flying

Sat Jan 25, 2020 3:54 pm

BravoOne wrote:
mcdu wrote:
BravoOne wrote:


I agree with much of your assessment but the fact remains that the key strokes are the same for the EO maneuver regardless of where you are at. The fact that you need to turn off the track and airway are basic airmanship issues. Not sure where you came up with the 5NM offset? Most all of what have listed is a function of the CFP and the crew does not calculate that data.

I don't work for SWA, but I have written and taught ETOPS and Polar Ops for a large company in the NW for the last ten years. In short I have forgotten more about International Ops. ETOPS and Polar ops than are likely to ever know. Sorry I tried to make simple for someone like yourself. My sincere apologies. BTW, EO drift down is accomplished the same way, be it over the Sahara or NAT. Don't make it over complicated. Also, many 737NG have a stand by nav function if the airlines opts to buy it.

How low is the lowest track if you need to make a 180 degree turn back? Can you expand on that? Maybe I'm missing something in the AC 120.42C. Probably something lost in the translation.


You teach ETOPS you are aren’t familiar with the revision that took place in the NATS and WATRS AOA. You would know about the 5nm offset and the no 180 until below the lowest track. WN operates in the WATRS area. They might want to know these things.

Does WN have stand by NAV? If so what powers the system? Maybe someone with a type rating on a WN plane would be beneficial in an ETOPS certification.



What does AOA stand for? The way you have inserted into this discussion does not make sense?


Area of operation ie; Polar, Atlantic, Pacific.
 
BravoOne
Posts: 4094
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:27 pm

Re: FAA acted improperly in approving WN Hawaii flying

Sat Jan 25, 2020 4:03 pm

FlyHossD wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:
A type rating is necessary to evaluate whether a pilot runs to APU or the airspeed at which she flies? Again, let's go back to my question: is there any part of an ETOPS verification flight that would require a type rating in the relevant aircraft for acceptable evaluation?


First, to a large degree, I agree with you that a type rating isn't necessarily required.

Yet, why not have a type rated FAA Air Safety Inspector in the jumpseat for Southwest's ETOPS flights to Hawaii? It's not like there's a shortage of them available on the west coast. Don't AA, AS and UA fly 737s from the coast to Hawaii? Who better would know what's right and what's not?



The FAA staff that overseas this type of Operating Specifications is not typically a pilot. The SFO International Ops Filed Office typically has two FAA Inspectors that have Naviigator backgrounds. Don't know if the same guy is there today as in the past few years but he might have been around when they made the High and the Mighty. His partner was an ex USAF Navigator but to a leave to go fly drones for some 3 letter government organization. I had done a few table top exercises and maybe one high latitude (NCA/AMU) check ride from him years back. He was pilot but not typed in the aircraft we were using. (MD11)

In the case of SWA, one would imagine that the FAA Program Manager the oversees the SWA operation out of the FAA Certificate Management Office, at Dallas Love Field would have been onboard but there is nothing to suggest that he/she would be ETOPS qualified.
Last edited by BravoOne on Sat Jan 25, 2020 4:26 pm, edited 2 times in total.
 
BravoOne
Posts: 4094
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:27 pm

Re: FAA acted improperly in approving WN Hawaii flying

Sat Jan 25, 2020 4:24 pm

mcdu wrote:
BravoOne wrote:
mcdu wrote:

You teach ETOPS you are aren’t familiar with the revision that took place in the NATS and WATRS AOA. You would know about the 5nm offset and the no 180 until below the lowest track. WN operates in the WATRS area. They might want to know these things.

Does WN have stand by NAV? If so what powers the system? Maybe someone with a type rating on a WN plane would be beneficial in an ETOPS certification.



What does AOA stand for? The way you have inserted into this discussion does not make sense?


Area of operation ie; Polar, Atlantic, Pacific.


Thanks, I could not ge my head around that one. Each operator seems to create their own profile for this stuff.
 
Thunderbolt500
Posts: 139
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2019 9:01 pm

Re: Accusation: FAA acted improperly in approving WN Hawaii flying

Sun Jan 26, 2020 3:55 am

5hrs in a narrow body got to be short on space

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos