ETOPS question...
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2008
Position: JAFO- First Observer
Posts: 997
For those into probability and stats, 1x10-7 is frequently used as a mathematical qualifier for risk assessments such as ETOPS emergency situations quantified as acceptable/very low/improbable. We wouldn’t want to over-regulate...
#12
What units are you talking about here? I grant you that whatever the answer it is well within the bounds of what most rational people would consider safe, but if that is truly the number used there should be some units attached to it - for those of us into probability and statistics.
#13
I have heard exactly the same story from a guy who’s brother flies for one of the ME3
He said they regularly launch with about enough fuel to do a missed and flame out before a second attempt.
Those guys are on individual contracts which can be cancelled at any time. What do you expect them to do?
He said they regularly launch with about enough fuel to do a missed and flame out before a second attempt.
Those guys are on individual contracts which can be cancelled at any time. What do you expect them to do?
GF
#14
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,533
ETOPS accounts for engine out plus unpressurized cruise at 10k to the divert field. No engine/pack combo could maintain cabin pressure with a window out.
ETOPS does not account for excess drag due to structural failure... that would probably not work out with typical fuel loads.
ETOPS does not account for excess drag due to structural failure... that would probably not work out with typical fuel loads.
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2014
Posts: 1,681
#16
I have heard exactly the same story from a guy who’s brother flies for one of the ME3
He said they regularly launch with about enough fuel to do a missed and flame out before a second attempt.
Those guys are on individual contracts which can be cancelled at any time. What do you expect them to do?
He said they regularly launch with about enough fuel to do a missed and flame out before a second attempt.
Those guys are on individual contracts which can be cancelled at any time. What do you expect them to do?
It's also important to remember that ETOPS is a legality for dispatch, and what is planned and what is uplifted are two different things.
Once airborne the entry into ETOPS becomes a more mechanical/equipment/status issue. Once inside an ETOPS segment, the diversion plan is an emergency situation and up to the flight crew.
Airmanship and route experience dictate my fuel requirements at the dispatch stage. Typically ETOPS is considered as decision point between to airports over water, but I've had routes with a single alternate, and even ETOPS over land in Africa and China.
Dispatchers do consider economy/legality in their panning, but I ultimately decide what fuel is appropriate.
#17
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: B-737NG preferably in first class with a glass of champagne and caviar
Posts: 5,886
I’ll dispute the original remark concerning ETOPs requirements. Other then when mutually agreed upon by the flight crew and dispatch/flight following, reducing taxi fuel, and increasing contingency fuel, I don’t know how a flight plan’s fuel summary, unless manually altered, could show such less than minimum fuel. Who in their right mind would sign such a release?
Friends and colleagues, nor myself, flying ETOPs operations, have never been called into management’s office for tea and biscuits, for leaving cargo behind for the sake of uplifting extra fuel.
There is no airman worth their salt that would take less than legal fuel. Fuel is directly proportionate the the life expectancy of an operation venturing over the water, with no suitable/adequate airport within 180/210 minutes of an ETP... especially transiting the ITZ, during cyclone season, dodging large areas of thunderstorms.
Non ICAO Member carriers? May be a different story.
Friends and colleagues, nor myself, flying ETOPs operations, have never been called into management’s office for tea and biscuits, for leaving cargo behind for the sake of uplifting extra fuel.
There is no airman worth their salt that would take less than legal fuel. Fuel is directly proportionate the the life expectancy of an operation venturing over the water, with no suitable/adequate airport within 180/210 minutes of an ETP... especially transiting the ITZ, during cyclone season, dodging large areas of thunderstorms.
Non ICAO Member carriers? May be a different story.
Last edited by captjns; 04-19-2018 at 04:42 AM.
#18
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: B-737NG preferably in first class with a glass of champagne and caviar
Posts: 5,886
Not quite sure how you feel empowered to speak for so many people at so many carriers across the globe.
I, and others, have said that they have been a part of, or witnessed, operations at large and otherwise respected carriers where ETP fuel requirements were not met. This was as a result of corporate fuel mandates.
I, and others, have said that they have been a part of, or witnessed, operations at large and otherwise respected carriers where ETP fuel requirements were not met. This was as a result of corporate fuel mandates.
Now this is just a stretch... a flight plan/release, without the attached re-release may tally up to insufficient fuel. But that’s a partial picture without the full story.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
RVSM Certified
Flight Schools and Training
22
02-27-2009 12:04 PM