Page 2 of 4

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Posted: Sat Sep 12, 2015 4:28 pm
by airbazar
Quoting aviatorcraig (Reply 26):
Even if the ETOPS and non-ETOPS planes are physically the same, the MELs for an ETOPS flight won't be, therefore the checklists won't be.

The ckecklist won't be the same but if both aircraft are exactly the same, an ETOPS checklist would pass on a non-ETOPS aircraft, no?

Quoting QualityDr (Reply 47):
What we found was, the more people involved, especially as required signoffs, the worse the record of compliance.

This is basically the argument infavor of pilotless airplanes. Most accidents are caused by pilot error. Remove the pilots and you have less accidents.

Quoting apodino (Reply 43):
Yes they are the same plane...but the H has longer lasting fire suppression system and more Medical Oxygen for emergency purposes.

Are the tanks physically larger? Because "longer lasting" is just a matter of how much you put in it.

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Posted: Sat Sep 12, 2015 4:36 pm
by PHLapproach
Many of you keep saying "how come the aircraft number was not verified?" Pilots are not like us as far jumping on the fact that they know a particular number is not matching a subfleet. When they get on the a/c they verify the actual a/c and logbook on board matches the a/c on release. You will really find a crew with the ability to say "wait a second even though the release matches the aircraft I know A/C 202 is Non ETOPS".

I was jumpseating once and when I went down to say hi to the crew, they were just getting settled in. The Captain says to the FO "is this a 300?". Clearly they didn't know aircraft numbers to just know they were sitting in front of an aircraft that is hell of a long longer, heavier and thus has a much different performance profile than a 752 which really isn't all that important. Does the flight deck match the one your typed on and currently working?!? Good to go then.

As far as the flight planner goofing. That's truly the issue at hand. At my carrier our planner will give us a warning stating an aircraft outside of its limits is trying to plan and thus will not calculate. Non Overwater/ ETOPS aircraft trying to dispatch over a route that takes them more than 60 Mins from land a warning is issued and for 162NM Deviation Exemption A/C if you try to plan a route outside that 162NM you'll also get a warning.

I will say, besides the flight planner failure which would have stopped the issue dead in its tracks 3-4 hours before departure. I think the other huge thing that would have prevented it would have been a Captain that's been on type for a while and has learned specific things to sort of pick up on learned over time with experience. But with a fresh Capt brand new on type. You're just not likely to have him/her pick up on something like that. As as was mentioned, if they came from the 737/MD80. They've never had to look for things that they were on an ETOPS a/c or not. Maybe if there was subfleet of ETOPS 73's then they would have developed a personal verification step on their ow and would apply it to the Airbus now.

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Posted: Sat Sep 12, 2015 4:51 pm
by ikramerica
Quoting thenoflyzone (Reply 42):

In canadian waters, 40nm off shore clutching a seat cushion will be hypothermic death before any boat can arrive.

There was an episode of Quincy about this, but in 35 years, nothing has changed.

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Posted: Sat Sep 12, 2015 5:07 pm
by BravoOne
This is what you would expect to see on a typical ETOPS flight plan and the header is mandatory by FAA rags. Hard to imagine how a computer would generate an ETOPS flight plan for an aircraft that was not in the ETOPS data base. I guess when dealing with computers anything is possible.


/////THIS FLIGHT PLAN COMPLIES WITH THE 180 MIN ETOPS RULE /////

PLAN 7XXX 08272200Z BOE077 CIDX-100 FOR ETD 0000Z
FLT REL IFR /28 KSEA/SEA TO PHNL/HNL MACH:.84 REGN NXXXER
PROGS 2712NWS ELEV 0433FT 0013FT AVG W/C M19 ISA DEV P09
COMP 2200Z FOR ETD 0000Z/28AUG12 REGN NXXXER 777-300E GE90-115

SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS
ETOPS FLIGHT/MAX DIVERSION TIME IN STILL AIR LIMITED TO 180 MINUTES
FROM THE FOLLOWING ETOPS ALTERNATE AIRPORTS - KPDX/PDX
KSFO/SFO
PHNL/HNL

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Posted: Sat Sep 12, 2015 5:12 pm
by mjoelnir
It would be interesting to know, why AA does not mark its ETOPS frames on the forward landing gear door and inside the cockpit.

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Posted: Sat Sep 12, 2015 5:47 pm
by BravoOne
Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 54):
It would be interesting to know, why AA does not mark its ETOPS frames on the forward landing gear door and inside the cockpit.

Why would you say that? It's plainly visible on the AA aircraft I have seen. It's spelled out vertically on the NG door

E
T
O
P
S

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Posted: Sat Sep 12, 2015 5:48 pm
by blueflyer
Quoting AAR90 (Reply 28):
Reportedly AA has instituted a number of (different) software programming changes

So if I understand what has been written so far, until these programming changes come into effect, ETOPS compliance depends on the crew being aware/informed that they need an ETOPS-certified aircraft to perform the route?

When dispatch fails, is there another way for the crew to know they need an ETOPS-certified aircraft?

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Posted: Sat Sep 12, 2015 6:11 pm
by Revelation
Quoting jayunited (Reply 32):
I just find it hard to believe that AA would not have a system of checks and balances in place to prevent this type of mistake.

Yet #28 tells you such a set of checks was not in place:

Quoting AAR90 (Reply 28):
The aircraft assigned & dispatched was the aircraft flown. Unfortunately it was not one of the 16 A321H's that are ETOPS certified. 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. IOW, when the dispatcher attempts to dispatch an ETOPS flight using a non-ETOPS acft, the dispatch software will NOT produce a flight plan (for a number of different reasons) and hence... the flight can not depart (i.e. no flight plan).
Quoting blueflyer (Reply 56):
So if I understand what has been written so far, until these programming changes come into effect, ETOPS compliance depends on the crew being aware/informed that they need an ETOPS-certified aircraft to perform the route?

#28 also tells you the remedies:

Quoting AAR90 (Reply 28):
Yep, LOTS of "new-to-A321" and "new-to-LAXI" pilots with more coming on-line quickly (plus monthly TDY's). Not an excuse, just fact. From what little I know of AA A321 fleet/procedures about the only thing that might have alerted the flight crew of a non-compliant aircraft was the lack of "ETOPS" printed on the outside of the aircraft maintenance logbook. Newly established procedures require both pilots to verify "ETOPS" is printed on the outside of the AML, ETOPS is listed in the Special Equipment List section of flight plan and a number of computer programming changes designed to prevent the flight plan from being completed (can't be released by dispatcher) when a non-ETOPS aircraft is assigned to an ETOPS flight.

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Posted: Sat Sep 12, 2015 6:19 pm
by mjoelnir
Quoting BravoOne (Reply 55):
Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 54):
It would be interesting to know, why AA does not mark its ETOPS frames on the forward landing gear door and inside the cockpit.

Why would you say that? It's plainly visible on the AA aircraft I have seen. It's spelled out vertically on the NG door

E
T
O
P
S

It was mentioned in some post further up.

Quoting thenoflyzone (Reply 14):
Quoting flyDTW1992 (Reply 3):

i don't think AA's A321s have ETOPS written on the nose gear door.
Quoting aviatorcraig (Reply 26):
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.

At AA, "ETOPS" is printed in LARGE letters on the outside of the Aircraft Maintenance Logbook. I do not believe it is printed in the cockpit nor on the wheel door(s)... but it might be in the future.

If the airplane should be marked ETOPS than it is an rather unexusable failure by the crew to accept a frame not marked ETOPS for an ETOPS flight, apart from anything else.

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Posted: Sat Sep 12, 2015 6:32 pm
by cbphoto
Quoting PHLapproach (Reply 51):
I was jumpseating once and when I went down to say hi to the crew, they were just getting settled in. The Captain says to the FO "is this a 300?". Clearly they didn't know aircraft numbers to just know they were sitting in front of an aircraft that is hell of a long longer, heavier and thus has a much different performance profile than a 752 which really isn't all that important. Does the flight deck match the one your typed on and currently working?!? Good to go then.

Exactly! I was jumpseating on a certain cargo airline out of SNA and apparently the departure procedure is slightly different (from the pilots operating perspective) depending on what engines were on the plane. (Pratts or RR) The crew briefed the departure procedure as if they had Rolls on them. I then queried the P&W placard on the panel and they both went...doh! So I agree, it happens often and with many different subfleets of the same type of aircraft, it doesn't surprise me stuff like this happens from time to time. Of course, flying a non ETOPS bird on an ETOPS route is a big no no!

Also, for the few wondering if a crew takes a tail number that is not on the release/paperwork, that is a big deal. Many crews have gotten extra training, suspension and even fired for doing it. Make sure everything matches up, always!!

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Posted: Sat Sep 12, 2015 6:48 pm
by Flighty
Quoting ubeema (Reply 49):

Software or no. It is dispatch's job to know the fleet. Somebody put that AC on a Hawaii run (a swap) which obviously the airplane was not scheduled to do.

AA's fleet is so huge (and the 321 thing is so new) that dispatch goofed. Few pilots can know the entire AA fleet. But afaik dispatch is supposed to keep all 900 frames moving. Can I do that? No! It takes perfect processes and a pilot sign off, both of which found a weak link that day

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Posted: Sat Sep 12, 2015 6:59 pm
by FlyHossD
Quoting UA444 (Reply 20):
Why would that matter which 757 they took?

That's a potentially large error and the FAA isn't known for having a "no harm, no foul" attitude.

The dispatcher checked the other aircraft (757 #1), not the plane that was used. The dispatcher would have checked for inoperative equipment on #1, not #2, etc. Then there's the regulatory aspect; the captain accepted the release (etc.) for #1, but flew #2.

Hypothetically, let's say that #1 had the weather radar inop, but that would have been an issue for morning flight before the thunderstorms could get started. Yet when the crew flew #2, #1 was left at the station and now having an failed weather radar presents a problem for the airline.

Many years ago, I recall a four way swap at my carrier. I had accepted the release and didn't learn of the swap until the passengers started boarding and all of them were going to destination different than ours! It didn't take too many radio calls to learn that there had been a late multi-plane swap; the swap was so late that none of the crews involved had the correct or final paperwork.

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Posted: Sat Sep 12, 2015 7:01 pm
by Finn350
Quoting blueflyer (Reply 56):
So if I understand what has been written so far, until these programming changes come into effect, ETOPS compliance depends on the crew being aware/informed that they need an ETOPS-certified aircraft to perform the route?

The crew certainly knew that they needed an ETOPS certified aircraft. What they didn't know is that the aircraft they had was not ETOPS certified.

Quoting apodino (Reply 43):
You ignored what I wrote. Yes they are the same plane...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. This is almost impossible to pick up with the naked eye without getting into the cargo bin and inspecting the fire equipment.

Yes, ETOPS certification requires certain systems approved time to exceed 15 minutes the time needed to fly to the alternate airport

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Posted: Sat Sep 12, 2015 7:03 pm
by MrBuzzcut
Has AA had an aircraft type that has ETOPS and non-ETOPS subfleets prior to this? From what I recall all of the 752, 763 and 777 fleets are ETOPS planes. I wonder if the software defaulted to all 321 being ETOPS and interchangeable.

Just spitballing there...there really isn't any logical explanation as to how this huge error could have happened, yet here we are.

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Posted: Sat Sep 12, 2015 7:11 pm
by Viscount724
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.

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Posted: Sat Sep 12, 2015 7:18 pm
by mjoelnir
Quoting MrBuzzcut (Reply 63):
Has AA had an aircraft type that has ETOPS and non-ETOPS subfleets prior to this? From what I recall all of the 752, 763 and 777 fleets are ETOPS planes. I wonder if the software defaulted to all 321 being ETOPS and interchangeable.

Not all the 757 at AA are ETOPS certified.

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Posted: Sat Sep 12, 2015 7:38 pm
by Classa64
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.

But would there not have to be some major differences? I mean if there both the same whats the harm in flying that distance. If they are the same equipment wise then slapping an ETOPS sticker on the gear door should mean its certified? Not being sarcastic.

I have read all the posts and some say there they are different and some say there the same, no clear answer, and i am very curious as to the differences.

Apparently this should have never happened, but it did and like accidents we learn from them, good that it made it and now they can fix the mistake or prevent it from happening again, all involved caused the error.

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Posted: Sat Sep 12, 2015 7:46 pm
by AAR90
Quoting Aesma (Reply 29):
So, is engine maintenance at AA more stringent on ETOPS planes, or are they doing the same ETOPS certifiable maintenance on all A32S because it comes out cheaper in the long run to have less engine problems on the line ?

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.

Quoting MrBuzzcut (Reply 63):
Has AA had an aircraft type that has ETOPS and non-ETOPS subfleets prior to this? From what I recall all of the 752, 763 and 777 fleets are ETOPS planes. I wonder if the software defaulted to all 321 being ETOPS and interchangeable.

I personally know that the 757 and 767 was (when I flew them) a mix of ETOPS and non-ETOPS aircraft. The procedures in place in that (combined) fleet apparently never migrated to the A321 fleet as its ETOPS program was being developed as it appears the software was never programmed to differentiate the A321H sub-fleet.

Quoting MrBuzzcut (Reply 63):
Just spitballing there...there really isn't any logical explanation as to how this huge error could have happened, yet here we are.

Continuing your "spitballing"... my guess is with all the merger related management shuffling going on during the A321H ETOPS program development, the requirement to program the (ancient) software with the automated protections found in pre-merger AA ETOPS programs never got issued and/or accomplished. Add in the fact that so many of the humans involved are new {new to AA, new to A321, new to ETOPS, new to LAX-HI routes, etc.} that there was little/no previous human experience the fall back on that might have prevented this incident from ever happening.

OH BOY! There are a whole lot of "experienced" folks now!
And a whole lot of (newly installed) automated checks!

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Posted: Sat Sep 12, 2015 8:15 pm
by flightless
It would seem to me a good place for a negative label: "NOT ETOPS CERTIFIED" in some of the same spots you would look for the positive label.

Unlike some of the crazy "don't put this plastic bag over your baby's head" labeling that gets mandated, this would seem to be a label which would actually answer a valid question. It would only be needed on a not-ETOPS machine of a type which does have ETOPS variants.

[Edited 2015-09-12 13:16:24]

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Posted: Sat Sep 12, 2015 9:08 pm
by EA CO AS
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.

  

While this was a serious error, the immediate self-reporting aspect of it will definitely be a mitigating factor in FAA determining what action, if any, takes place.

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Posted: Sat Sep 12, 2015 10:20 pm
by Ronaldo747
Where are the A321H based? And which routes are they operated on besides Hawaii? Thanks.

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Posted: Sat Sep 12, 2015 11:43 pm
by KC135Hydraulics
How much will the fine be?

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Posted: Sun Sep 13, 2015 12:10 am
by XAM2175
Quoting BravoOne (Reply 53):
Hard to imagine how a computer would generate an ETOPS flight plan for an aircraft that was not in the ETOPS data base

It's spectacularly easy to imagine it. The computer will do what it's been programmed to do - even if that isn't what the programmer actually wants it to do. Programming doesn't call for a check of ETOPS airframe on ETOPS route? Then the computer won't run that check.

Quoting flightless (Reply 69):
It would seem to me a good place for a negative label: "NOT ETOPS CERTIFIED" in some of the same spots you would look for the positive label.

Bingo! It's a hell of lot easier to notice a definite negative then it is to notice the absence of a positive.

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Posted: Sun Sep 13, 2015 12:33 am
by jc2354
I just check aa.com for LAX-HNL for Oct 9, and it shows nothing but 321B aircraft. Boy, am I behind in the times, I didn't think the A321 would be able to make HNL until the NEO version was available.

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Posted: Sun Sep 13, 2015 12:42 am
by rta
Quoting jc2354 (Reply 74):
I just check aa.com for LAX-HNL for Oct 9, and it shows nothing but 321B aircraft. Boy, am I behind in the times, I didn't think the A321 would be able to make HNL until the NEO version was available.

I've heard AA will have to take payload restrictions depending on the winds and where they are departing from.

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Posted: Sun Sep 13, 2015 1:07 am
by boberito6589
Here are the 321H aircraft:

N118NN 850
N119NN 851
N121AN 853
N120EE 852
N122NN 854
N123NN 855
N124AA 856
N125AA 857
N126AN 858
N127AA 859
N128AN 860
N129AA 861
N130AN 862
N131NN 863
N132AN 864
N133AN 865

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Posted: Sun Sep 13, 2015 1:28 am
by TWA772LR
OT, but is this the first time an A32x has flown West Coast to Hawaii?

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Posted: Sun Sep 13, 2015 1:35 am
by SANFan
Just out of curiosity, how are we certain that this hasn't happened before, to AA or anyone else, or that it doesn't happen more frequently than we think? Are we sure that every instance of this mistake would be well reported like this one has been?

bb

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Posted: Sun Sep 13, 2015 3:30 am
by CWAFlyer
Quoting airbazar (Reply 50):
This is basically the argument infavor of pilotless airplanes. Most accidents are caused by pilot error. Remove the pilots and you have less accidents.

Dumb question, but does your computer at work or home ever have a crash or even a minor hiccup? If you answer yes, how do you think computers controlling airplanes are going to be 1000% infallible?

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Posted: Sun Sep 13, 2015 3:33 am
by hivue
Quoting MSJYOP28Apilot (Reply 23):
The captain in this incident had reportedly never flown an ETOPS trip before

So what exactly is the significance of this? Do flight crew have to be ETOPS certified? If so, wouldn't a check airman go along on at least the first flight? If not isn't the crew's job just to get the airplane they are assigned from origin to destination?

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Posted: Sun Sep 13, 2015 3:52 am
by CWAFlyer
Quoting aa777lvr (Reply 31):
In this case the aircraft routing folks (those who assign ships to flight sequences - an arm of the maintenance dept)

Routing of airplanes typically falls within the dispatch department. MX schedules whatever work needs to be done on a given night and dispatch works within that framework. When a change is made, unless it involves a plane that on a specific line to be routed to a base and that routing changing, no one within mx has any involvement of swapping airplanes.

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Posted: Sun Sep 13, 2015 11:59 am
by aa777lvr
Quoting CWAFlyer (Reply 80):
Routing of airplanes typically falls within the dispatch department. MX schedules whatever work needs to be done on a given night and dispatch works within that framework. When a change is made, unless it involves a plane that on a specific line to be routed to a base and that routing changing, no one within mx has any involvement of swapping airplanes.

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).

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Posted: Sun Sep 13, 2015 12:55 pm
by airbazar
Quoting Classa64 (Reply 66):

But would there not have to be some major differences? I mean if there both the same whats the harm in flying that distance. If they are the same equipment wise then slapping an ETOPS sticker on the gear door should mean its certified? Not being sarcastic.

As pointed out above one of the most significant differences in ETOPS certified aircraft is the engine maintenance schedule.

Quoting jc2354 (Reply 73):
I just check aa.com for LAX-HNL for Oct 9, and it shows nothing but 321B aircraft. Boy, am I behind in the times, I didn't think the A321 would be able to make HNL until the NEO version was available.

A.net myth.
However AA's A321's will have about 30 seats blocked out of OGG and LIH because the runway there is too short for MTOW.

Quoting CWAFlyer (Reply 78):

Dumb question, but does your computer at work or home ever have a crash or even a minor hiccup? If you answer yes, how do you think computers controlling airplanes are going to be 1000% infallible?

It is a dumb question. My computer at home costs $500, has zero redundancies, and despite that I can't remember the last time it crashed or had a hiccup. It's pretty darn reliable for such a cheap machine and I've had it for about 6 years.

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Posted: Sun Sep 13, 2015 1:09 pm
by par13del
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.
Quoting flightless (Reply 68):
It would seem to me a good place for a negative label: "NOT ETOPS CERTIFIED" in some of the same spots you would look for the positive label.

I may have missed it but has it been confirmed that ETOPS was not written on the a/c door?
If a walk around was done by all and sundry and no one noticed that ETOPS was missing, why would they notice anything else - positive or negative?

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Posted: Sun Sep 13, 2015 1:41 pm
by Aesma
Quoting CWAFlyer (Reply 78):
Dumb question, but does your computer at work or home ever have a crash or even a minor hiccup? If you answer yes, how do you think computers controlling airplanes are going to be 1000% infallible?

Redundancy. More redundancy. And a bit of redundancy on top.

The London tube has driverless trains with a driver because it is thought people won't accept otherwise, so we're not there yet. In Paris several lines are driverless.

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Posted: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:48 pm
by aeroflop
I see this topic has deviated from the discussion and into pilotless airlines again.
"Planemaker" will appear shortly as he has been summoned.

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Posted: Sun Sep 13, 2015 3:01 pm
by DocLightning
Quoting par13del (Reply 83):
I may have missed it but has it been confirmed that ETOPS was not written on the a/c door?
If a walk around was done by all and sundry and no one noticed that ETOPS was missing, why would they notice anything else - positive or negative?

Because it is easy to miss an omission. It is less easy to miss the presence of a warning. Not impossible by any stretch but if "NO ETOPS" had been painted on the gear door, the pilot doing the walk-around might have gotten on the phone with dispatch about it.

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Posted: Sun Sep 13, 2015 3:13 pm
by us330
Quoting airbazar (Reply 82):
However AA's A321's will have about 30 seats blocked out of OGG and LIH because the runway there is too short for MTOW.

Ah. So that explains why AA is still exclusively using the 757 on LAX-LIH and LAX-OGG, and the 321B on LAX-HNL.

They use a mix of 757s/321Bs on LAX-KOA.

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Posted: Sun Sep 13, 2015 3:56 pm
by Thenoflyzone
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 64):
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.

I doubt it. Most Canadian carriers on their North American runs are within 60 minutes of an alternate, but often times find themselves more than 50 nm from shore. Ex. Flights to Newfoundland, or crossing the Gulf of Mexico to CUN or MEX.

So having life jackets on board makes sure they can use all of their fleet on these non-ETOPS but nonetheless overwater flights.

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Posted: Sun Sep 13, 2015 5:48 pm
by readytotaxi
Surely all this could have be avoided if an A.netter was on board.
He would have walked forward and told the Captain the you can't take this plane HNL, it's not ETOPS !

And don't call me Surely.   

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Posted: Sun Sep 13, 2015 7:03 pm
by starrymarkb
Quoting Aesma (Reply 84):
Redundancy. More redundancy. And a bit of redundancy on top.

The London tube has driverless trains with a driver because it is thought people won't accept otherwise, so we're not there yet. In Paris several lines are driverless.

It's more strong unions, plus I understand UK regulations require a staff member on each train and at all below ground stations. The original 1960s Automatic Train Operation equipment wasn't thought to be reliable enough. More modern installations are more reliable

Plus if the ATO does go tits up *cough Central line* then the trains stop and service can quickly resume with manual driving An pilotless aircraft can't just stop if it encounters a problem!

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Posted: Sun Sep 13, 2015 7:14 pm
by moo
Quoting CWAFlyer (Reply 78):
Dumb question, but does your computer at work or home ever have a crash or even a minor hiccup? If you answer yes, how do you think computers controlling airplanes are going to be 1000% infallible?

Better software (which can be mathematically proven - its expensive, but it can be done), better hardware (no more cosmic rays randomly flipping bits in your computers memory, which is why server memory with error checking systems is much much more expensive than the memory you have in your computer) and better approaches to solution trees.

Pretty much exactly how its done atm - when was the last time a FBW system actually caused an aircraft to crash?

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Posted: Sun Sep 13, 2015 8:55 pm
by AAR90
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.

Quoting us330 (Reply 87):
Ah. So that explains why AA is still exclusively using the 757 on LAX-LIH and LAX-OGG, and the 321B on LAX-HNL.

They use a mix of 757s/321Bs on LAX-KOA.

It takes time to generate the number of A320/LAX/I (plane/base/division) pilots required to complete transition to all LAX-Hawaii flying to A321H. Lots of folks going thru training in Texas this fall with LAX-Hawaii planned to be all A321H by the end of the year.

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Posted: Sun Sep 13, 2015 11:21 pm
by cjg225
Quoting readytotaxi (Reply 89):
Surely all this could have be avoided if an A.netter was on board.
He would have walked forward and told the Captain the you can't take this plane HNL, it's not ETOPS !

And don't call me Surely.

The both sad and funny part is that I could see that exact thing happening.

I'm a very, very, very low-grade A.netter and even I try to check out every plane I am on before it takes off by doing a search on its registration number.

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2015 12:56 am
by zkncj
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 64):
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.

While not an Canadian Airline, NZ still operates its Q300s without life jackets (http://www.airnewzealand.co.nz/assets/PDFs/Q300-safetycard.pdf), both the ATRs and B1900 do, but no the Q300s.

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2015 1:06 am
by DeltaMD90
Imagine if they discovered this when the plane landed in HI. It would be stuck there forever or until they ETOPS certified it  

But seriously, what would they have done? I'm sure there is a simple answer

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2015 1:15 am
by cjg225
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 95):
Imagine if they discovered this when the plane landed in HI. It would be stuck there forever or until they ETOPS certified it

But seriously, what would they have done? I'm sure there is a simple answer

Unless I am misunderstanding what you're saying... I think they discovered it midflight, so even worse.

Also, didn't they just ferry it back? I guess from that the implication is that ETOPS is only a really big issue for passenger flights. If you're ferrying it somewhere and it's just a few crew aboard, does the aircraft have to be ETOPS certified?

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2015 1:16 am
by hivue
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 95):
I'm sure there is a simple answer

Indeed there is. The plane did complete the trip to HNL. It was ferried back since ETOPS certification apparently doesn't apply to non-revenue flights.

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2015 2:42 am
by Whiteguy
Quoting thenoflyzone (Reply 42):
Fully agree. I noticed WestJet as well doesn't have ETOPS written on the nose gear doors of its B738s and B737s.



Technically the whole fleet is ETOPs qualified except for 3 of the B736s. Only a certain number of 700s and all the 800s can do the over water portion of ETOPs flights...

You can hold an alternate as an ETOPs flight even though it's all over land...

RE: AA Flies Non-ETOPS Equipment To HI

Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2015 2:47 am
by Whiteguy
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...