Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Quoting aa777lvr (Thread starter): Oops. |
Quoting northwestEWR (Reply 2): How did no one catch this? That's the scary part. |
Quoting flyDTW1992 (Reply 3): Right?! This is a little disturbing. Between dispatch, a/c schedulers, any number of OCC departments...And then the flight crew and cabin crew...How did it get by everyone? You'd think the least somebody would notice there wasn't "ETOPS" in bold letters on the gear door and think "hmmm...This plane's going over the ocean..." |
Quoting divemaster08 (Reply 6): Sure its not just Flightaware getting mixed up due to an incorrect filing of a flightplan?? Or the same flight number used for an onward connection from Hawaii? |
Quoting divemaster08 (Reply 6): Here's hoping you are all wrong... |
Quoting northwestEWR (Reply 5): Isn't there also a pretty significant ETOPS pre-departure inspection?? Yikes. |
Quoting flyDTW1992 (Reply 9): Yeesh. |
Quoting aa777lvr (Thread starter): AA accidentally assigned a non-ETOPS 321 to their LAX-HNL (AA33/31AUG) with a non-ETOPS certified 321 (N137AA). Oops. |
Quoting flyDTW1992 (Reply 3): |
Quoting 777way (Reply 10): Didnt the pilots care? |
Quoting n7371f (Reply 18): Pilots are going to be in big trouble. Part of the captain's duty is to sign off on the specific aircraft, ship #, and that the aircraft is fit for dispatch for its specific route. |
Quoting Finn350 (Reply 15): both versions of the A321s are essentially the same aircraft and each has emergency life rafts required for a water evacuation |
Quoting n7371f (Reply 18): Reminds me of the morning in GEG about 10 years ago when a NW captain flew the wrong ship # GEG-MSP. Big time trouble. NW had 2 757-200's parked overnight at GEG and the newly minted contract station staff boarded the wrong 757 for the first AM flight. Captain didn't notice discrepancy. Believe he was suspended by NW for a while. |
Quoting MSJYOP28Apilot (Reply 23): The pilot wouldn't have noticed any difference because the A321H and A321S are the same plane equipment wise. The only difference is in certification. |
Quoting northwestEWR (Reply 5): Isn't there also a pretty significant ETOPS pre-departure inspection?? Yikes. |
Quoting flyDTW1992 (Reply 9): Yeah! How did MX control/line MX miss that! |
Quoting 777way (Reply 10): Didnt the pilots care? |
Quoting peanuts (Reply 12): Very very strange. You'd think the last line of defense is the pilots pre departure checklist. |
Quoting Transpac787 (Reply 17): For curiosity sake, does anyone know which ships in the AA fleet are A321S and which are A321H?? |
Quoting n7371f (Reply 18): Part of the captain's duty is to sign off on the specific aircraft, ship #, and that the aircraft is fit for dispatch for its specific route. |
Quoting aviatorcraig (Reply 26): I would guess the checklists are electronic these days but do they reside in the aircraft or with the crew? |
Quoting a/c dxer (Reply 27): Every etops plane I've been on always has a placard in the cockpit saying Etops. Also it is supposed to be on the wheel door. |
Quoting MSJYOP28Apilot (Reply 23): The captain in this incident had reportedly never flown an ETOPS trip before and is a new captain on this fleet type. With many 737 and MD80 FOs and CAs upgrading to Airbus captains, part of the growing pains on the pilot side is not being familiar from a regulatory point that there needs to be specific Ops Spec and regulatory approval for each plane to be able to fly ETOPS. The pilot wouldn't have noticed any difference because the A321H and A321S are the same plane equipment wise. The only difference is in certification. |
Quoting slcdeltarumd11 (Reply 19): This seems impossible. AA deserves a huge fine for this. |
Quoting AAR90 (Reply 28): |
Quoting UA444 (Reply 20): |
Quoting Flighty (Reply 11): AA is just a big operation. Pilots were confused. Maybe MX was confused. They have a LOT of A321s now, many new, in 3/4 types. Corners were cut. Everything lined up perfectly wrong. |
Quoting Aesma (Reply 29): The critical element of an ETOPS plane, especially for a modern narrowbody that has otherwise the same bells and whistles be it ETOPS or not, is engine maintenance. |
Quoting debonair (Reply 33): Sorry, I don't get it - what is actually the difference between an American Airlines 321H and 321S?In the past at least, ETOPS a/c were equipped with life rafts and life jackets - opposite to non ETOPS planes with seat cushions as flotation devices. Is this here also the case? |
Quoting apodino (Reply 34): Don't forget that ETOPS needs a longer fire suppression system that will last for how ever many minutes the AC is ETOPS certified for. The other thing is that because you are flying longer distances from diversion airports, you need a larger supply of medical oxygen as well in case a passenger has a medical issue requiring it (happens more than you think) |
Quoting flylku (Reply 40): I am guessing I am naive in believing that something so simple is in place. Or, is it just very easy to circumvent? Or is this a merger related hiccup? |
Quoting Finn350 (Reply 35): Life rafts are required on over water flights (over 30 minutes or 100 nm) regardless of ETOPS. |
Quoting ripcordd (Reply 37): Time to put etops on the underside of the nose and in the cockpit |
Quoting Finn350 (Reply 35): As stated in reply #15, both versions of the A321s are essentially the same aircraft and each has emergency life rafts required for a water evacuation. Life rafts are required on over water flights (over 30 minutes or 100 nm) regardless of ETOPS. |
Quoting Max Q (Reply 24): |
Quoting thenoflyzone (Reply 42): In Canada, less than 50 nm from shore, no life jackets or life rafts required. From 50 nm to 60 minutes from shore, life jackets (not life rafts) are required. More than 60 min, life rafts are also required. Seems like the US is stricter than Canada on this. |
Quoting jayunited (Reply 32): What you've described is impossible there are to many departments and people involved for a mistake of this magnitude to be made. |
Quoting jayunited (Reply 32): What you've described is impossible there are to many departments and people involved for a mistake of this magnitude to be made. |
Quoting hoMSaR (Reply 46): What do you mean impossible? This whole thread is about the fact that this actually happened. Something that happened is, by definition, not impossible. |
Quoting moo (Reply 41): If it isn't part of the planning software then that software isn't fit for purpose imho - omitting non-ETOPS capable aircraft from ETOPS routings is one of the most basic constraints that the planning software should be handling, along with number of seats on aircraft vs number of tickets sold (you don't schedule an A319 for the route normally handled by a 777-300 for example) etc. If the planning software came up with this pairing of equipment to routing and all the data about the route and equipment was correct (eg someone hadn't put the aircraft down as ETOPS in the system, or switched the aircraft manually), then the planning software developers will be paying the fine, regardless of it not being caught by AA employees. |