CWAFlyer
Posts: 536
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2005 3:33 am

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Mon Sep 14, 2015 2:58 am

Quoting aa777lvr (Reply 81):
Umm..wrong. VERY wrong when it comes to AA.

I can assure you that aircraft routing and dispatch at AA work very closely in an operational setting. Maintenance routing/aircraft routing routes the aircraft on flight sequences. They assign the ship numbers to make sure that planes get where they need to at prescribed times so that their various maintenance (checks, overhauls, modifications, etc) can be accomplished. They direct aircraft routings around MEL items as they're issued by maintenance technical specialists. When dispatch needs a ship swap, they call and coordinate it with these folks. Dispatch at AA does not directly control the ship assignments (however, they often influence the swaps). I had a friend/former colleague that used to do this for AA and was always intrigued by their work.

If you want more proof that I know what I'm talking about, this group used to be located in Tulsa at the maintenance base and has only recently relocated to the IOC in Texas (recent as in past couple of years).

So someone in mx missed this, and not dispatch?

[Edited 2015-09-13 19:59:39]

[Edited 2015-09-13 20:00:11]
 
CWAFlyer
Posts: 536
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2005 3:33 am

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Mon Sep 14, 2015 3:10 am

Quoting moo (Reply 91):
Pretty much exactly how its done atm - when was the last time a FBW system actually caused an aircraft to crash?

The Air France A320 the Indian Airlines A320, and Asiana 777 crashes, while not caused by a FBW system, were caused by logic in the auto flight and auto thrust systems that the crews misinterpreted and were not able to override. A computer is only as good as the software and the hard ware running it. It has also caused basic airmanship to be diminished. Do you believe that the USAir Hudson River incident would have had the same outcome without two highly trained aviators sitting up front?
 
hivue
Posts: 1999
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:26 am

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Mon Sep 14, 2015 3:20 am

Quoting CWAFlyer (Reply 101):
Do you believe that the USAir Hudson River incident would have had the same outcome without two highly trained aviators sitting up front?

Sullenberger got considerable assistance in carrying this off from the A320's envelope protections.
"You're sitting. In a chair. In the SKY!!" ~ Louis C.K.
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 6313
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Mon Sep 14, 2015 3:29 am

Quoting CWAFlyer (Reply 101):

Quoting moo (Reply 91):
Pretty much exactly how its done atm - when was the last time a FBW system actually caused an aircraft to crash?

The Air France A320 the Indian Airlines A320, and Asiana 777 crashes, while not caused by a FBW system, were caused by logic in the auto flight and auto thrust systems that the crews misinterpreted and were not able to override. A computer is only as good as the software and the hard ware running it. It has also caused basic airmanship to be diminished. Do you believe that the USAir Hudson River incident would have had the same outcome without two highly trained aviators sitting up front?

You clearly have no understanding of the Asiana accident or the 777, and what you stated is very incorrect. The crew could have easily overridden the autothrottle. Boeing airplanes are designed so the pilots have ultimate authority. They can pretty much override any of the automation.
 
maxpower1954
Posts: 1067
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 1:14 am

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Mon Sep 14, 2015 4:14 am

Quoting hivue (Reply 102):
Sullenberger got considerable assistance in carrying this off from the A320's envelope protections.


That's incorrect, He flew down to the water in exactly the same way he would have done it in a powerless 707 or a DC-3 for that matter. He didn't haul the stick back to the stop and let the alpha protections take over. That would have led to a 2,000 fpm descent rate and no energy to stop the descent.

The positive ending would have been the same in a non FBW airplane.

Signed, a pilot with over 7,000 hours of A320 time.
 
Dalmd88
Posts: 2971
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 3:19 am

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Mon Sep 14, 2015 4:35 am

Quoting AAR90 (Reply 67):

Physical engine maintenance is the same on both, but ETOPS flights require additional pre-flight maintenance checks --which were all performed for the incident flight.

No it is not. Many parts on the engine, IDG for one, must be an ETOPS certified part. More than one IDG may work on the engine in a not ETOPS application. But only one submodel might be ETOPS certified and maintained. The very IDG has to have a ETOPS release form the component shop before it can be installed. This is the same for a lot of components. Sure the component is essentially the same but the reliability of the approved ETOPS program has not been met.

Another thing is dual exposure. Something as simple is going out to service oil. One AMT can not service both motors. I can change filters and replace all sorts of fluid lines, but only on one motor. Someone else has to do the other motor. Plus all the AMT's that work on ETOPS critical procedures have to be ETOPS certified for that fleet type. Before I was 757 qualified at DL I could not even check the oil on an ETOPS 757 at DL, even though I was ETOPS qualified on the 767 and there is zero difference on the oil cap on the Etops and domestic 757.

[Edited 2015-09-13 21:40:33]
 
strfyr51
Posts: 4138
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Mon Sep 14, 2015 5:17 am

Having a sub fleet with Fleet Specific Nose Numbers that are ONLY for ETOPS Capable airplanes and Badging in the Cockpit that Says "This airplane is Equipped and Certified for ETOPS operations" would go a LONG wasy to having this problem Solved. Because of the Nose Number assigned does NOT comply with the ETOPS checklist? It Cannot be assigned to the TRIP. I work for United and we've had ETOPS Certification for Years. (As well as American.)
This isn't Rocket Science But the dispatchers and Routers have to know what they're looking at. And since Maintenance gas to perform an ETOPS Departure check? Somebody REALLY "Flubbed the Dub" And FAA Fines will Ensue.
American is Better than This.
 
AAR90
Posts: 3140
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2000 11:51 am

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Mon Sep 14, 2015 6:13 am

Quoting Dalmd88 (Reply 106):
No it is not. Many parts on the engine, IDG for one, must be an ETOPS certified part.

At AA, the A321S and A321H parts are the same. i.e. they are all ETOPS certified. It is just cheaper since the 321H fleet is so small it is not financially justifiable to maintain a separate supply chain.

Quoting Dalmd88 (Reply 106):
Another thing is dual exposure.

The physical maintenance is the same. What is different is the ETOPS procedures (who, when and how often, etc.).
*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
 
Chaostheory
Posts: 1139
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 2:09 am

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Mon Sep 14, 2015 7:39 am

Quoting maxpower1954 (Reply 105):
He didn't haul the stick back to the stop and let the alpha protections take over. That would have led to a 2,000 fpm descent rate and no energy to stop the descent.

It's been a while since I read the NTSB report but I do recall full aft stick mentioned and the alpha protection 'attenuating pilot inputs'.

Here it is (page65):

At 1530:39, as the airplane descended through 50 feet, the sidestick moved aft more abruptly, reaching its aft limit (16°) at 1530:41 and remaining there until touchdown at 1530:43. As the airplane descended below 50 feet, the alpha-protection threshold value increased from 14.5° to 15.5°.

According to FDR data, the airplane touched down on the Hudson River at an airspeed of 125 KCAS with a pitch angle of 9.5° and a right roll angle of 0.4°. Calculations indicated that the airplane ditched with a descent rate of 12.5 fps, a flightpath angle of -3.4°, an AOA between 13° and 14°, and a side slip angle of 2.2°.

1.16.1.2 Airbus Simulation
Airbus performed a simulation of the last 300 feet of the accident flight, which indicated that the airplane was performing as designed and was in alpha-protection mode from 150 feet to touchdown. The Airbus simulation indicated that, from1530:36 to 1530:43, the flight control system attenuated the effect of the pilot’s airplane nose-up (ANU) sidestick inputs below 100 feet radio altitude.


Emphasis is mine.

http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/AAR1003.pdf
 
User avatar
diverdave
Posts: 696
Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 1:00 am

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Mon Sep 14, 2015 12:43 pm

Quoting AAR90 (Reply 28):
I'm guessing AA "self-reported" this so if the FAA agrees that AA's procedural changes are enough, I doubt a fine will result --that would destroy the self-reporting immunity and therefore the self-reporting program... everywhere.

We shall see, but this is not a paperwork error. An aircraft was operated without the required safety equipment for the route flown. (See quote below.)

Quoting apodino (Reply 43):
but the H has longer lasting fire suppression system and more Medical Oxygen for emergency purposes. Without the added fire suppression equipment, which the S and Ts do not have...you don't have ETOPS.

I'm thinking it will be a sizable fine.

Self-reporting aside, how common is it to have a ferry flight back from HNL to the mainland and would that have aroused any interest?

David

[Edited 2015-09-14 05:45:20]
 
maxpower1954
Posts: 1067
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 1:14 am

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Mon Sep 14, 2015 1:57 pm

[quote=ChaosTheory,reply=109]t's been a while since I read the NTSB report but I do recall full aft stick mentioned and the alpha protection 'attenuating pilot inputs'.

Here it is (page65):

At 1530:39, as the airplane descended through 50 feet, the sidestick moved aft more abruptly, reaching its aft limit (16°) at 1530:41 and remaining there until touchdown at 1530:43. As the airplane descended below 50 feet, the alpha-protection threshold value increased from 14.5° to 15.5°.

According to FDR data, the airplane touched down on the Hudson River at an airspeed of 125 KCAS with a pitch angle of 9.5° and a right roll angle of 0.4°. Calculations indicated that the airplane ditched with a descent rate of 12.5 fps, a flightpath angle of -3.4°, an AOA between 13° and 14°, and a side slip angle of 2.2°.

1.16.1.2 Airbus Simulation
Airbus performed a simulation of the last 300 feet of the accident flight, which indicated that the airplane was performing as designed and was in alpha-protection mode from 150 feet to touchdown. The Airbus simulation indicated that, from1530:36 to 1530:43, the flight control system attenuated the effect of the pilot’s airplane nose-up (ANU) sidestick inputs below 100 feet radio altitude.

Yes, below 100 feet it goes into flare mode. At 50 it trims nose down to simulate the pitch change of a conventional aircraft as it descends into ground effect. Under certain conditions this pitch trim change has me move the stick full aft, or nearly so, to keep from making a hard landing. Normal Airbus quirk.

I'm not saying FBW didn't contribute to the positively to the outcome, because it clearly did. But some of the claims have been completely off the wall, like the TV show where the "expert" claimed all Sully did was hold the stick full aft from the point of the flameout all the way to the Hudson, floating down like a big leaf. It doesn't work that way. The high sink rate at Alpha Max would have been unsurvivable.
 
apodino
Posts: 3616
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 2:11 am

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Mon Sep 14, 2015 3:00 pm

Quoting diverdave (Reply 110):
Self-reporting aside, how common is it to have a ferry flight back from HNL to the mainland and would that have aroused any interest?

Its not uncommon at all. If an ETOPS plane develops an issue over in HI that renders the Airplane Non ETOPS...it is often easier to ferry the airplane back to the mainland rather that fix it out there since the MX is in most cases contract. Over in Europe its not as big an issue because there is a route from Europe to North America that does maintain 60 minutes so you can fly it even without ETOPS.

Quoting AAR90 (Reply 92):
Quoting aa777lvr (Reply 81):Umm..wrong. VERY wrong when it comes to AA.
Not actually true. The dispatcher initiates the equipment change discussion with maintenance and other departments are quickly included; however, the final decision always rests with the IOC (Integrated Operations Control) MOD (Manager On Duty) and the dispatcher is the one who puts the MOD's decision into effect. IOW... effectively equipment change decisions are made and implemented by dispatch, not maintenance.

There has been much discussion about how this is going to be handled going forward with the merger. Legacy US does things quite a bit differently. At legacy US there are planning Units led by a Unit Coordinator who makes the Final Decisions on Routing. They have a MX Planner, AC Router, Crew Scheduler and a Customer Service Coordinator in the Unit as well. A unit coordinator will use info from all those people to make decisions about AC. They are also the ones a Dispatcher will turn to if they need an AC swap for MEL or other reasons.
 
UALWN
Posts: 2186
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:27 pm

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Mon Sep 14, 2015 4:23 pm

Quoting maxpower1954 (Reply 104):
He didn't haul the stick back to the stop and let the alpha protections take over.

No, but the alpha protection did take over at the end, as you yourself mentioned in your later post:

Quoting maxpower1954 (Reply 111):
The Airbus simulation indicated that, from1530:36 to 1530:43, the flight control system attenuated the effect of the pilot’s airplane nose-up (ANU) sidestick inputs below 100 feet radio altitude.


As for this:
Quoting maxpower1954 (Reply 111):
the TV show where the "expert" claimed all Sully did was hold the stick full aft from the point of the flameout all the way to the Hudson, floating down like a big leaf. It doesn't work that way. The high sink rate at Alpha Max would have been unsurvivable.

Indeed, that's beyond stupid. Some expert...
AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/787/AB6/310/32X/330/340/350/380
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9517
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Mon Sep 14, 2015 6:08 pm

Quoting hivue (Reply 97):
The plane did complete the trip to HNL.

My question is why, if AA discovered and reported the issue after the a/c left why did ATC / FAA / NTSB have the a/c returned or sent to the nearest airport, was it because they were already past the half way point?
 
AAR90
Posts: 3140
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2000 11:51 am

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Mon Sep 14, 2015 6:24 pm

Quoting apodino (Reply 112):
There has been much discussion about how this is going to be handled going forward with the merger. Legacy US does things quite a bit differently. At legacy US there are planning Units led by a Unit Coordinator who makes the Final Decisions on Routing. They have a MX Planner, AC Router, Crew Scheduler and a Customer Service Coordinator in the Unit as well. A unit coordinator will use info from all those people to make decisions about AC. They are also the ones a Dispatcher will turn to if they need an AC swap for MEL or other reasons.

That is how things have been done at LAA for at least my 28+ years. It was just that those folks were never an official "unit." The LUS and LAA operations centers have co-located to the new IOC building, but still separate in how they operate. Not sure when that will all be combined.

Quoting par13del (Reply 114):
My question is why, if AA discovered and reported the issue after the a/c left why did ATC / FAA / NTSB have the a/c returned or sent to the nearest airport, was it because they were already past the half way point?

Plane was past the ETP (Equal Time Point) so the nearest airports were in HI. The return ferry flight was conducted under FAR-91 (ETOPS not required) with just two pilot. FA's and pax were not allowed.

Quoting diverdave (Reply 110):
I'm thinking it will be a sizable fine.

IF the FAA proposed a fine, you will see ALL self-reporting cease IMMEDIATELY. The key to ANY safety program is the ability of the participants to report a safety issue withOUT the fear of ANY penalty/punishment. It is more important to KNOW about the hazard(s) than it is to NOT know about the hazard(s). When ASAP (no penalty self-reporting) programs began in 1990's the FAA was aghast at the volume of what they (the FAA) did not know was actually going on in the industry.
*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
 
32andBelow
Posts: 4111
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 2:54 am

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Mon Sep 14, 2015 6:28 pm

Quoting AAR90 (Reply 115):
IF the FAA proposed a fine, you will see ALL self-reporting cease IMMEDIATELY. The key to ANY safety program is the ability of the participants to report a safety issue withOUT the fear of ANY penalty/punishment. It is more important to KNOW about the hazard(s) than it is to NOT know about the hazard(s). When ASAP (no penalty self-reporting) programs began in 1990's the FAA was aghast at the volume of what they (the FAA) did not know was actually going on in the industry.

You can still get a fine when you self report. Generally if you make the same mistake or similar mistakes twice. In this case, the FAA will want a very big fix and way to hold AA accountable in the future.
 
User avatar
diverdave
Posts: 696
Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 1:00 am

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Mon Sep 14, 2015 6:40 pm

Quoting AAR90 (Reply 115):
IF the FAA proposed a fine, you will see ALL self-reporting cease IMMEDIATELY. The key to ANY safety program is the ability of the participants to report a safety issue withOUT the fear of ANY penalty/punishment. It is more important to KNOW about the hazard(s) than it is to NOT know about the hazard(s). When ASAP (no penalty self-reporting) programs began in 1990's the FAA was aghast at the volume of what they (the FAA) did not know was actually going on in the industry.

I see a huge difference here between a pilot making an operational error and a gap in an airline's dispatch procedures. Particularly when said gap resulted in dispatching an aircraft without the required safety equipment for the route being flown.

I cannot grasp how the latter would fall under any "self-reporting" safe harbor when it is the result of defective procedures.

Would you argue that if WN had self-reported their maintenance violations that no penalty should have been imposed?

David
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9185
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Mon Sep 14, 2015 6:45 pm

Quoting AAR90 (Reply 115):
IF the FAA proposed a fine, you will see ALL self-reporting cease IMMEDIATELY. The key to ANY safety program is the ability of the participants to report a safety issue withOUT the fear of ANY penalty/punishment. It is more important to KNOW about the hazard(s) than it is to NOT know about the hazard(s). When ASAP (no penalty self-reporting) programs began in 1990's the FAA was aghast at the volume of what they (the FAA) did not know was actually going on in the industry.

What kind of behaviour by an airline could lead to suspension of their ETOPS certification?
 
canoecarrier
Posts: 2573
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2004 1:20 pm

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Mon Sep 14, 2015 6:49 pm

Quoting AAR90 (Reply 115):
IF the FAA proposed a fine, you will see ALL self-reporting cease IMMEDIATELY. The key to ANY safety program is the ability of the participants to report a safety issue withOUT the fear of ANY penalty/punishment.

I don't buy that for a second. There may be more of a temptation not to report it if the FAA levies a huge fine, but if the fine is reasonable there's no reason to think airlines wouldn't continue to self report in the future. You see self reporting all the time in NCAA rules violations. The penalty for not reporting is almost always much worse than had they reported the violation in the first place.
The beatings will continue until morale improves
 
oflanigan
Posts: 196
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 3:22 am

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Mon Sep 14, 2015 7:06 pm

Quoting Canoecarrier (Reply 119):

Not sure you can compare NCAA rules and a Voluntary Safety Reporting Program.

Self reporting works in aviation safety and makes the system safer. It's designed to be non punitive for a reason. Let the system work, it works very well as part of a Just Safety Culture. If you don't participate in a just safety culture than you might not be able to grasp the concept. But it is ingrained in our aviation system, and it works.
 
rampbro
Posts: 497
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2012 4:00 am

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Mon Sep 14, 2015 8:16 pm

ETOPS: Engines Turn Off Passengers Sue
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19316
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Mon Sep 14, 2015 8:36 pm

Quoting Whiteguy (Reply 99):
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 64):
Quoting thenoflyzone (Reply 42):
In Canada,

less than 50 nm from shore, no life jackets or life rafts required.

Are there any Canadian carriers that operate without life jackets on their entire fleet? I can't recall being on airliner operated by a Canadian (or European) carrier where the only flotation device was the seat cushion, which used to often be the case on U.S. carriers on domestic flights.


Jazz removed all life jackets on their aircraft a couple years ago. Not sure if it was just the Dash 8s or RJs as well...

Some Jazz Dash 8 routes cross a fair amount of water.

Example: YGP-YGR (156 miles, all over water).

http://www.gcmap.com/map?P=ygp-ygr&MS=wls&MR=60&MX=720x360&PM=*

And YZP (Sandspit, BC)-YVR, 468 miles, a couple of hundred over water, and very few if any alternate airports near the over-water portion

http://www.gcmap.com/map?P=yzp-yvr&MS=wls&MR=60&MX=720x360&PM=*
 
CWAFlyer
Posts: 536
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2005 3:33 am

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Mon Sep 14, 2015 8:46 pm

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 103):
You clearly have no understanding of the Asiana accident or the 777, and what you stated is very incorrect. The crew could have easily overridden the autothrottle. Boeing airplanes are designed so the pilots have ultimate authority. They can pretty much override any of the automation.

I understand just fine. I didn't say that the crews couldn't override the systems. In all three cases I mentioned, the crews failed to understand the automation or a particular system and failed to do something or believed the airplane would save itself.
 
CWAFlyer
Posts: 536
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2005 3:33 am

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Mon Sep 14, 2015 8:49 pm

Quoting hivue (Reply 102):
Sullenberger got considerable assistance in carrying this off from the A320's envelope protections.

Did the envelope protections make the decision to put the airplane in the river, or the crew?
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 6313
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Mon Sep 14, 2015 9:46 pm

Quoting rampbro (Reply 121):
ETOPS: Engines Turn Off Passengers Sue

Eating Time of Pacific Sharks
 
AAR90
Posts: 3140
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2000 11:51 am

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Mon Sep 14, 2015 10:15 pm

Quoting diverdave (Reply 117):
I cannot grasp how the latter would fall under any "self-reporting" safe harbor when it is the result of defective procedures.

Learning how to design and operate a successful safety program is (at minimum) a graduate school level activity. At NPGS the first day's lesson in the first class in Aviation Safety is a historical lesson in the basics of what every successful safety program contains. That lesson was a very long time ago for me, but the single most important item on the otherwise very small list was: a non-punitive reporting system that could go around the chain-of-command if necessary. Without that, no safety program will ever learn what REALLY happens out-on-the-line. Beyond that, if you still can not grasp how/why an airline's "defective" procedures can be self-reported you'll need to spend some time in graduate school.

Quoting diverdave (Reply 117):
Would you argue that if WN had self-reported their maintenance violations that no penalty should have been imposed?

Depends upon the circumstances... of which I am not privy.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 118):
What kind of behaviour by an airline could lead to suspension of their ETOPS certification?

I am not FAA so the only descriptive term I can think of is: "that depends." That depends on the airline's management and their actions (pre- and post-incident) as well as the FAA POI (Principle Operating Inspector) and his team assigned to that airline.
*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9185
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Mon Sep 14, 2015 11:02 pm

Quoting AAR90 (Reply 126):
I am not FAA so the only descriptive term I can think of is: "that depends." That depends on the airline's management and their actions (pre- and post-incident) as well as the FAA POI (Principle Operating Inspector) and his team assigned to that airline.

As you were advertising to cease self reporting if AA would get a fine, I was thinking how it would imping on the ETOPS certification, if an airline keep quiet about such an error and be found out later.
Self reporting does not need to result in no fine, if it leads to avoiding the big hammer.
 
Whiteguy
Posts: 1424
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2003 6:11 am

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Mon Sep 14, 2015 11:46 pm

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 122):

Some Jazz Dash 8 routes cross a fair amount of water.

Example: YGP-YGR (156 miles, all over water).

http://www.gcmap.com/map?P=ygp-ygr&MS=wls&MR=60&MX=720x360&PM=*

And YZP (Sandspit, BC)-YVR, 468 miles, a couple of hundred over water, and very few if any alternate airports near the over-water portion

http://www.gcmap.com/map?P=yzp-yvr&MS=wls&MR=60&MX=720x360&PM=*

It's not the distance they fly across the water, it's the distance from land....
 
jc2354
Posts: 608
Joined: Sat May 01, 2004 9:56 am

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Tue Sep 15, 2015 12:26 am

Seems to me it was a failure of any type of pre-flight, right down to the flight attendants not checking for the extra oxygen bottle.
If not now, then when?
 
Okcflyer
Posts: 581
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 11:10 pm

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Tue Sep 15, 2015 12:30 am

Why did AA not make all of their A321 deliveries to-date be ETOPS rated? Seems like the fleet is awfully small to be dividing up already.
 
AAR90
Posts: 3140
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2000 11:51 am

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Tue Sep 15, 2015 1:32 am

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 127):
As you were advertising to cease self reporting if AA would get a fine, I was thinking how it would imping on the ETOPS certification, if an airline keep quiet about such an error and be found out later.
Self reporting does not need to result in no fine, if it leads to avoiding the big hammer.

Not sure what you are trying to say. I was not advertising anything. I was stating known fact: fine somebody who volunteered to be in a non-punitive voluntary program and... that somebody will stop volunteering. There was a huge fight when the FAA mandated that all ASAP programs change from an "automatically accepted" reporting program to a "majority to accept" program. ALL participants fought the change but FAA was adamant. APA's "acceptance" letter has one of the most clearly stated consequences: If the FAA ever uses ANYTHING from ANY "AASAP" (AA's version of the program) report the APA will IMMEDIATELY CEASE ALL PARTICIPATION !

The scenario you describe is significantly different in that you conjecture an airline that makes an honest mistake and then covers up about making that mistake. Intentional acts to violate airline policy, rules, procedures and (especially) FAR's are specifically exempt from all ASAP programs. The error itself may have no financial penalty, but the "cover-up" actions would most certainly find "the big hammer" of the FAA. As to what that penalty would be, I haven't got a clue as that would rest (primarily) with the FAA POI assigned to that airline (or higher-ups in FAA HDQ). It would not be precedent setting for the US Gov't to revoke an airline's license to operate.
*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9185
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Tue Sep 15, 2015 2:12 am

Quoting AAR90 (Reply 131):
Not sure what you are trying to say.

I think you are playing down the seriousness of this incident. There should have been safe guards in place at AA that absolutely would stop such an error. That is a part what ETOPS certification of an airline is about. If the FAA fines AA everybody there should breath easily. But your idea of that would lead to not self reporting such an error should be extremely dangerous to any airline. Such an error not reported, but coming out afterwards should lead to revoking the ETOPS certification of the airline at least temporarily.
 
AAR90
Posts: 3140
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2000 11:51 am

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Tue Sep 15, 2015 5:51 am

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 132):
I think you are playing down the seriousness of this incident.

Again, I don't understand what you are trying to get at since I have never said this was not a serious incident and I have never down played the seriousness of what happened. It was DUMB! It was STUPID! But it was (from all known information) an honest mistake. A mistake which AA management has addressed with numerous overlapping procedural and software changes to prevent a repeat. Where is the "playing down the seriousness"???

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 132):
Such an error not reported, but coming out afterwards should lead to revoking the ETOPS certification of the airline at least temporarily.

I agree and IF I were the FAA POI assigned to that (theoretical) airline, that is what I would push for within the FAA enforcement procedures. But that is NOT what happened in this instance.
*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9185
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:49 am

You said:

Quoting AAR90 (Reply 114):
F the FAA proposed a fine, you will see ALL self-reporting cease IMMEDIATELY.

Did you or not?

The idea that such an infraction would not be reported to get around a fine and risk serious consequences is IMO ridiculous.

Quoting AAR90 (Reply 132):
But it was (from all known information) an honest mistake.

What do you call a honest mistake?

Scheduling assigns a non ETOPS frame to an ETOPS flight, mistake one, should not have happened.
An ETOPS pre departure check is made on a non ETOPS frame, mistake two second possibility to catch the error.
Somewhere in the paperwork regarding the frame and service record there must be a clear indication if the frame is ETOPS or not.
The crew receives a non ETOPS frame for an ETOPS flight and accepts the frame after their preflight inspection, mistake three.
Is there a clear enough indication regarding the frame to tell pilots if it is ETOPS or non ETOPS?

What about this mistakes is honest? It is a break down of ETOPS procedure.
 
Western727
Posts: 1678
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 12:38 pm

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Tue Sep 15, 2015 5:59 pm

Quoting Whiteguy (Reply 127):
It's not the distance they fly across the water, it's the distance from land....

Correction: it's the distance from the nearest suitable airport. From the ETOPS page on Wikipedia:

There are different levels of ETOPS certification, each allowing aircraft to fly on routes that are a certain amount of single-engine flying time away from the nearest suitable airport.
Jack @ AUS
 
AAR90
Posts: 3140
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2000 11:51 am

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Tue Sep 15, 2015 6:13 pm

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 133):
Scheduling assigns a non ETOPS frame to an ETOPS flight, mistake one, should not have happened.

Agreed. It was an honest mistake by the someone(s) who assigned the aircraft to the flight. Procedures now in place to (hopefully) prevent this from happening again.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 133):
An ETOPS pre departure check is made on a non ETOPS frame, mistake two second possibility to catch the error.

Agreed. It was an honest mistake since there was no procedure requirement for the maintenance techs to verify the plane they were assigned to conduct the check on was an ETOPS airframe. Procedures now in place to (hopefully) prevent this from happening again.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 133):
Somewhere in the paperwork regarding the frame and service record there must be a clear indication if the frame is ETOPS or not.

Agreed, it should have been on the paperwork; however, it was not actually on the paperwork. Procedures now in place to (hopefully) prevent this from happening again.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 133):
The crew receives a non ETOPS frame for an ETOPS flight and accepts the frame after their preflight inspection, mistake three.

Disagree. There was no procedural requirement for the flight crew to verify the airframe was an ETOPS aircraft. The lack of this step in the procedures was the mistake, not the crew not doing something they were not required to do. Procedures now in place to (hopefully) prevent this from happening again.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 133):
Is there a clear enough indication regarding the frame to tell pilots if it is ETOPS or non ETOPS?

"Clear enough" is a value judgement that can change depending upon the individual. IMHO, yes there was "clear enough" indication to show the plane was ETOPS or non-ETOPS; however, there was no procedural requirement for the flight crew to conduct such verification prior to an ETOPS flight. Procedures now in place to (hopefully) prevent this from happening again.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 133):
What about this mistakes is honest?

Everybody was doing what the AA procedures required them (no mistakes made) to do and yet.... this happened (obviously a huge mistake). The mistake was in the creation of the procedures to omit all (and more) that you mention. Those are common and well established procedures on all other AA ETOPS fleets, but were missing on the newly created (and FAA approved) A321 ETOPS fleet. If you are doing what you are supposed to be doing and yet something happens that is not supposed to happen, there has been an "honest mistake" made.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 133):
It is a break down of ETOPS procedure.

Disagree. This was not a "breakdown" of ETOPS procedures, but rather a complete FAILURE during the CREATION of these particular ETOPS procedures that allow such an event to ever be POSSIBLE when following said ETOPS procedures. Remember, reportedly everybody was doing what the procedures required yet there were no "checks" established in those procedures to ensure the aircraft assigned was qualified/legal to perform the flight.

One can come up with many excuses as to why the well established procedures on other fleets was not carried over to the newly created A321 ETOPS program, but such excuses are... excuses. Dumb? Yes! Stupid? Yes! Excusable? NO! I suspect there is more than one career at AA (and potentially FAA?) that has already been significantly altered due to this incident --but we (the general public) will never hear about those actions.
*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
 
hivue
Posts: 1999
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:26 am

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Tue Sep 15, 2015 6:38 pm

Quoting OKCFlyer (Reply 129):
Why did AA not make all of their A321 deliveries to-date be ETOPS rated? Seems like the fleet is awfully small to be dividing up already.

ETOPS certification is not set it and forget it. It's an ongoing process with each airframe: special maintenance procedures, etc.
"You're sitting. In a chair. In the SKY!!" ~ Louis C.K.
 
Whiteguy
Posts: 1424
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2003 6:11 am

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:13 pm

Quoting Western727 (Reply 134):

Quoting Whiteguy (Reply 127):
It's not the distance they fly across the water, it's the distance from land....

Correction: it's the distance from the nearest suitable airport. From the ETOPS page on Wikipedia:

There are different levels of ETOPS certification, each allowing aircraft to fly on routes that are a certain amount of single-engine flying time away from the nearest suitable airport.

Yes, you're right......but this wasn't in reference to ETOPS, it was distance without life vests...
 
Western727
Posts: 1678
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 12:38 pm

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Tue Sep 15, 2015 11:23 pm

Quoting Whiteguy (Reply 137):
wasn't in reference to ETOPS, it was distance without life vests...

I stand corrected. Thanks for setting the record straight.
Jack @ AUS
 
N1120A
Posts: 26527
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Tue Sep 15, 2015 11:34 pm

Quoting OKCFlyer (Reply 129):
Why did AA not make all of their A321 deliveries to-date be ETOPS rated? Seems like the fleet is awfully small to be dividing up already.

1) Because a large number of their earliest A321 frames don't go over water for any significant period of time.

2) There is a significant cost, in money and time, to having ETOPS on planes.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
stratosphere
Posts: 1684
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 12:45 pm

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Wed Sep 16, 2015 2:06 am

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 133):
Quoting AAR90 (Reply 114):F the FAA proposed a fine, you will see ALL self-reporting cease IMMEDIATELY.Did you or not?The idea that such an infraction would not be reported to get around a fine and risk serious consequences is IMO ridiculous.

Did you not read what AAR90 said? It's not so much about the fine AA may receive but rather if the FAA decides to go after the individual players like the dispatcher, the captain and the AMT who signed the maintenance release after they self disclosed this incident. AAR90 is correct there is no benefit to be in the program if you will get burned by self disclosing I know I wouldn't do it if I saw the FAA hang someone who made a mistake and admitted to it. At my airline we have an ASAP committee made up of an AMT a member of management and an FAA rep they go though a flowchart to determine if this was deliberate or something amounting to human factors. Unless they come across something that was egregious on someones part chances are they will look to see what AA has done to correct this and make sure it never happens again. Again the ASAP program has made the system overall safer by taking the no harm no foul approach to self disclosure.
 
robsaw
Posts: 435
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2008 7:14 am

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Wed Sep 16, 2015 3:59 am

Quoting stratosphere (Reply 140):
Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 133):
Quoting AAR90 (Reply 114):F the FAA proposed a fine, you will see ALL self-reporting cease IMMEDIATELY.Did you or not?The idea that such an infraction would not be reported to get around a fine and risk serious consequences is IMO ridiculous.

Did you not read what AAR90 said? It's not so much about the fine AA may receive but rather if the FAA decides to go after the individual players like the dispatcher, the captain and the AMT who signed the maintenance release after they self disclosed this incident. AAR90 is correct there is no benefit to be in the program if you will get burned by self disclosing I know I wouldn't do it if I saw the FAA hang someone who made a mistake and admitted to it. At my airline we have an ASAP committee made up of an AMT a member of management and an FAA rep they go though a flowchart to determine if this was deliberate or something amounting to human factors. Unless they come across something that was egregious on someones part chances are they will look to see what AA has done to correct this and make sure it never happens again. Again the ASAP program has made the system overall safer by taking the no harm no foul approach to self disclosure.

Absolutely right. I work on the management side of an aircraft maintenance organization and encouraging self-reporting and non-punishment of errors that weren't wilful is a cornerstone of flight safety. Developing a culture where any sort of abnormal occurence that COULD have led to a safety issue is reported is key. You start putting threats on people for reporting and they will stop reporting the maybes and could haves first, which means pro-active changes don't happen that are necessary to prevent those future errors that are otherwise sure to occur.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9185
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Wed Sep 16, 2015 11:27 am

Quoting stratosphere (Reply 140):
Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 133):
Quoting AAR90 (Reply 114):F the FAA proposed a fine, you will see ALL self-reporting cease IMMEDIATELY.Did you or not?The idea that such an infraction would not be reported to get around a fine and risk serious consequences is IMO ridiculous.

Did you not read what AAR90 said? It's not so much about the fine AA may receive but rather if the FAA decides to go after the individual players like the dispatcher, the captain and the AMT who signed the maintenance release after they self disclosed this incident. AAR90 is correct there is no benefit to be in the program if you will get burned by self disclosing I know I wouldn't do it if I saw the FAA hang someone who made a mistake and admitted to it. At my airline we have an ASAP committee made up of an AMT a member of management and an FAA rep they go though a flowchart to determine if this was deliberate or something amounting to human factors. Unless they come across something that was egregious on someones part chances are they will look to see what AA has done to correct this and make sure it never happens again. Again the ASAP program has made the system overall safer by taking the no harm no foul approach to self disclosure.

I did read it. And I am not in agreement. AA could be fined, that would be complete reasonable and everybody at AA responsible should breath easier to have got away with it. This is a major failure. It is a failure of management installing proper ETOPS procedure. Not self reporting of such an incident by the airline should not lead to a fine but suspension of ETOPS certification for the airline, at least temporary. Because that is what ETOPS certification of the airline is about, being able to show that there are reliable procedures in place around all matters regarding ETOPS and than keeping to them.
To connect that to self reporting of individuals for their individual errors is talking beside the point. If you look for an individual to fine, how about the CEO?
Furthermore with taking the crew out of the loop in the procedure, AA managed that a Captain accepted and flew a frame not certified for the trip and infringed on the ultimate responsibility of the captain. They blindsided him/her with the procedure.

If that would have been a non USA airline flying a frame not certified for the trip it makes, the reception and discussion here on A.net would have run completely different.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9517
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Wed Sep 16, 2015 11:49 am

Quoting AAR90 (Reply 135):
Agreed. It was an honest mistake since there was no procedure requirement for the maintenance techs to verify the plane they were assigned to conduct the check on was an ETOPS airframe.

I struggle with this comment, I believe the checks before an ETOPS flight is not the same as a non-ETOPS flight.
Now if we say the the incorrect flight number was on the documents - in-land domestic flight versus Hawaii - then yes, I would say honest mistake, but so far I have not see where the flight number was incorrect.

I am more concerned if the thought process is that a large airline like AA who have a number of ETOPS a/c and operate a high number of such flights on a daily basis and for a number of years have introduced a new a/c type - even if sub-fleet - into its fleet and no one thought to establish ETOPS procedures, no one verified that ETOPS procedures were in place, here I would have to include the FAA since someone is supposed to be checking these things right?

Now if in two years, we see an FAA fine to AA for operating non-ETOPS a/c on an ETOPS flight then all will be well, a number of the fines issues to AA, WN and the likes have been for violations detected via paperwork review.
If we accept the fine two years down the road I think it should be accepted now, internally I am less concerned with the actual folks working the a/c, much more concerned on the standards and compliance departments who created the situation in the first place, AA does have some new A321's coming in that are ETOPS certified, one now has to wonder how.
 
Okcflyer
Posts: 581
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 11:10 pm

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Wed Sep 16, 2015 12:08 pm

I think the discussion has hinged too much on "to fine" or "not to fine". The reality is it should be focused on how much to fine.

AA screwed up huge. Multiple failures. That doesn't go unpunished. It won't fly politically and I can't picture a scenario where a regulator just say "ahh no big deal, just don't do it again".

There's a huge difference between a $100-million dollar fine and a $10-million dollar fine.

Self report? Fix the issue rapidly and adequately? Cooperate? We reduce the fine considerably.

Try to play sneaky and hide this? Let me make your shareholders scream so the problem gets fixed.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9185
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Wed Sep 16, 2015 12:26 pm

Quoting par13del (Reply 143):
I struggle with this comment, I believe the checks before an ETOPS flight is not the same as a non-ETOPS flight.

There was an ETOPS preflight check done on a non ETOPS frame, nearly unimaginable how the paperwork allows that.


But according to AAR90 that process and much more has been fixed.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9517
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Wed Sep 16, 2015 12:34 pm

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 145):
There was an ETOPS preflight check done on a non ETOPS frame, nearly unimaginable how the paperwork allows that.

If you mean by passing the check, yes, with the for profit mindset today, the cost savings of not have the same equipment on all a/c is a given, especially on new frames entering the fleet.
 
airbazar
Posts: 9891
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Wed Sep 16, 2015 12:46 pm

Quoting OKCFlyer (Reply 129):
Why did AA not make all of their A321 deliveries to-date be ETOPS rated? Seems like the fleet is awfully small to be dividing up already.

The only A321 ETOPS routes are LAX-Hawaii so they don't need that many ETOPS certified A321's. AA has 160+ A321's in their fleet and 60+ more yet to receive. ETOPS certification costs money. There's no point in certifying more than what they need.
 
User avatar
diverdave
Posts: 696
Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 1:00 am

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Wed Sep 16, 2015 12:57 pm

Quoting stratosphere (Reply 140):
Did you not read what AAR90 said? It's not so much about the fine AA may receive but rather if the FAA decides to go after the individual players like the dispatcher, the captain and the AMT who signed the maintenance release after they self disclosed this incident.

I haven't seen anybody in this thread that has expressed a desire for the individuals involved in the incident to be punished. Certainly I haven't expressed any desire for the individuals to be punished, and they should not be punished.

It's a process failure, but it's a big one. That's on the corporation, and AA should be hit with a big fine. That's all I have ever said.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 145):
But according to AAR90 that process and much more has been fixed.

I have read those responses to indicate that AAR90 does not have direct knowledge of what has or has not been fixed, as evidenced by the below quote which begins with the word reportedly.

Quoting AAR90 (Reply 28):
Reportedly AA has instituted a number of (different) software programming changes which will (hopefully) prevent the generation of flight paperwork when a non-ETOPS acft is assigned to an ETOPS flight.

But even without any insider knowledge on my part, I am quite confident that AA has taken a lot of steps to ensure that this won't happen again. Probably some are short-term, and there are likely some longer term possibly including paint and stencils for the letters E, T, O, P, and S.  

David
 
Raventech
Posts: 203
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 10:25 pm

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Wed Sep 16, 2015 1:33 pm

Quoting OKCFlyer (Reply 144):

Problem though is that any fine will starts the cover up muscles twitching.

An interesting analogy of what the non fine side is trying to illustrate is what is trying to be done in the IT world of having transparent failures. Now were trying to convince businesses that get hacked to come out immediately so affected individuals will know, but its hard to convince them of that when all they see is how it will negatively affect reputation and bury them in law suits.

Now while not quite apples to apples but the point is this is not a logic problem, this is a human behavior problem. If it was just a logic problem then I would agree a small fine would be appropriate that is significantly less than if they (FAA) found out on their own because logic says that is the best answer. But since we are dealing with behavior problem, our instinctive behavior is to do anything that could protect our reputation and minimize consequence.

When this happens there are three possible results for a scenario 1) Self Report and get rewarded for your honesty with a small fine, 2) FAA finds out that you didn't report it and you get a large fine, or 3) Nothing happens, FAA doesn't Notice, and no fine (which prior to ASAP type program, happened A LOT). Every dollar that you put in a fine for an honest, not gross negligence type of mistake will cause more people to run the risk of choosing option 3 and not being transparent about their failure so that the industry can learn from it.

Another kinda apple to oranges analogy but still illustrative of the point is from Dave Ramsey about getting out of debit. Logic tells you to pay the highest interest rate but if by far the largest loan is the lowest interest rate, then you can spend a long time trying to pay it off, and give up because you become frustrated that no individual loans are being cleared. So a plan centered around human behavior is actually pay smallest loans first so the excitement of getting rid of a loan cancels out the frustration of having to take a long time to pay the larger loans off. End result is you pay a couple hundred more in interest but because you are more likely to see it through to the end and is in a better place because it was treated as a human behavior problem

Summary for those who would rather not read my long post. Using a fine in voluntary reporting program because it is smaller still than if covered up, is an answer to a logic based problem, not the Human Behavior/Human Factors problem that it really is.

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