Timbo, thanks for the words on the unstacking, the reserve tie-in makes sense.

We and the Europeans, like many controlling agencies grant reciprocity for those licensed in another country to operate a flagged vessel from that country in to our/their land.

Depending on how the QRH et al is written, and how it varies from the Boeing manuals will be very important in the LOT case. On a ETOPS jets like the 767-300ER, crossing an ocean and exercising anything over 60 min etops with a center hyd failure, which most definitely effect ETOPS as it is recognized by all of the licensing agencies, would result in the FAA and the JAA both asking questions of the LOT crew, and dispatch.

Generally speaking, the 767-300ER is a 180 min etops jets, as things become inoperative after departure, you revert to 120 or 60 min etops. If, LOT had one ETP and dispatched at 180 mins, they were most likely past their etp, and continued on. No problem there. If they dispatched 180/120 with two etp's, their divert field should have been LPLA, or BIKF. This fact will be key. The findings will coming out in the investigation, but how they were dispatched, will play a significant role in Monday Morning quarterbacking this.

Did you know that losing two engines on one side of a four engine aircraft is not the same as losing one engine on a two engine aircraft? Both the assymetry and drag is greater creating higher fuel consumption, controllability is more difficult, and obviously this creates a loss or degradation of redundant systems. Did you know that the odds of losing another engine are the exact same as losing the first engine? Why would you continue to your destination with either? Would you continue to your destination with an aircraft producing only 3/4 of it's rated thrust and a inoperable engine producing nothing but drag? I'm not paid enough and I'm not brave enough to continue with an engine out. :eek: Not even with four engines. Now maybe one engine out on a B-52, just maybe. ;)

I'm sorry I don't currently have access to the various letters I referenced they are in my Air Force office. But, please be careful in assuming that 12301(d ) orders are exempt (I thought there was an additional paragraph from the letter you referenced that said something like if you orders are exempt they should say these orders are in support of so and so contingency. Then it goes onto say that if you believe this statement was mistakenly left off contact so and so for review and possible amendment ). I agree with you in that how can you not directly or indirectly support the war if your on orders... but rest assured it does not work that way. Please contact Air Force Reserve USERRA affairs for clarification. Having dealt directly with this vary issue in the last 4 months, I feel pretty confident in my views. However, if your orders do say you are in direct or indirect support you are good to go. But, just 12301(d) will not do it. I have know desire to argue the point, I would just recommend anybody contact USERRA affairs, have a copy of your orders they will ask you to fax them for review and tell you if you are exempt. Make sure you clarify before you have been gone 5 consecutive years from Delta.

acl, All correct, except you cannot change your ETOPS once airborne. Only prior to dispatch can the dispatcher change your ETOPS level.

Boeing changed the HMG acronym to HDG. Same generator. I would have to look it up, but I'm almost certain that it is not ETOPS qualified with the center hydraulic system inop. I think a big key here is did they get the failure after one and a half hours or did they get it four hours after airborne as some articles suggest?

That is true. That is for planning purposes, just like the MDM.

I wrote the first paragraph and then came back and added the second. That thought flickered in my mind, and I dismissed it to respond to a PM. I also mean after push back. You are correct that after departure the QRH is the controlling document, and it will be interesting to see what their said, and how it varied from Boeing's. The decision to continue will revolve around how many etp's they had. It is very plausible that this time of year with a short flight and a good tailwind, they only had one.

according to snopes.com, the Air China incident you mention was actually the damaged engine from the DHL A-300 that took a missile hit over Baghdad.

snopes.com: Air China Jet Engine

Hey Guys

Quick white slip question. Do you get paid for the credit or the actual time flown. Looks like I got paid for the time flown vs. the credit, which is significantly different.

Definitely a turn...and they were all definitely old. ATL. I love flying with the NYC girls.;)