Notices
Major Legacy, National, and LCC

ETOPS question...

Old 04-18-2018, 02:45 PM
  #11  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Oct 2008
Position: JAFO- First Observer
Posts: 997
Default

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...
PerfInit is offline  
Old 04-18-2018, 03:10 PM
  #12  
Perennial Reserve
Thread Starter
 
Excargodog's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 11,409
Default

Originally Posted by PerfInit View Post
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...
1x10-7 events per flight, per year, per passenger trip??

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.
Excargodog is online now  
Old 04-18-2018, 03:18 PM
  #13  
Gets Weekends Off
 
galaxy flyer's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2010
Position: Baja Vermont
Posts: 5,168
Default

Originally Posted by jcountry View Post
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?
Yeah, right! You might as well heard from a flight attendant. Do you really believe a pilot would operate under those conditions?

GF
galaxy flyer is offline  
Old 04-18-2018, 03:24 PM
  #14  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,533
Default

Originally Posted by rickair7777 View Post
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.
And I’ll add for clarification that the engine failure and decompression are planned at equal time point. Blow an engine and lose cabin pressure just as you arrive at the ETP, descend to 10,000’ and fly on one engine all the way to your ETOPS alternates.
450knotOffice is offline  
Old 04-18-2018, 06:10 PM
  #15  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: May 2014
Posts: 1,681
Default

Originally Posted by galaxy flyer View Post
Yeah, right! You might as well heard from a flight attendant. Do you really believe a pilot would operate under those conditions?

GF
Absolutely.

When they will get fired for speaking out.

What do you think those individual contracts are for?
jcountry is offline  
Old 04-18-2018, 07:11 PM
  #16  
Gets Weekends Off
 
RemoveB4flght's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Aug 2008
Posts: 770
Default

Originally Posted by jcountry View Post
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?
Having flown here for nearly a decade I can quickly refute this claim. I have never been chastised nor threatened for adding fuel/changing ETOPS alternates.

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.
RemoveB4flght is offline  
Old 04-19-2018, 04:16 AM
  #17  
Gets Weekends Off
 
captjns's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: B-737NG preferably in first class with a glass of champagne and caviar
Posts: 5,886
Default

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.

Last edited by captjns; 04-19-2018 at 04:42 AM.
captjns is offline  
Old 04-19-2018, 05:25 AM
  #18  
Gets Weekends Off
 
captjns's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: B-737NG preferably in first class with a glass of champagne and caviar
Posts: 5,886
Default

Originally Posted by Ship741 View Post
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.
No others, other than you and Joe Country...

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.
captjns is offline  
Old 04-19-2018, 06:05 AM
  #19  
Gets Weekends Off
 
CousinEddie's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2012
Posts: 1,080
Default

When you have pilots at the ME3 “legally” flying 126 block hours in a single month, you begin to wonder about other aspects of the operation as well.
CousinEddie is offline  
Old 04-19-2018, 06:52 AM
  #20  
Gets Weekends Off
 
galaxy flyer's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2010
Position: Baja Vermont
Posts: 5,168
Default

Originally Posted by Ship741 View Post
So you don't even ensure that you have flight plan fuel prior to pushback?
Perhaps, the uplift is greater than FPL?

GF
galaxy flyer is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Horizon513
Hangar Talk
5
08-08-2010 10:27 AM
RVSM Certified
Flight Schools and Training
22
02-27-2009 12:04 PM
USMCFLYR
Hangar Talk
3
08-23-2008 08:37 PM
cargo hopeful
Cargo
21
03-05-2006 06:12 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices