Originally Posted by Ship741 (Post 2575593)

So you don't even ensure that you have flight plan fuel prior to pushback?

Originally Posted by Ship741 (Post 2575593)

So you don't even ensure that you have flight plan fuel prior to pushback?

Originally Posted by RemoveB4flght (Post 2575460)

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.

Originally Posted by CousinEddie (Post 2575648)

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.

Originally Posted by captjns (Post 2576255)

On the jet yes... in the seat no. Augmented crews.

If otherwise, share which ME3 you fly with and share first hand information? Second hand infor from the Publix Cashier doesn’t wash.

Originally Posted by GogglesPisano (Post 2576401)

Regardless. 126 hrs/month in an airplane is atrocious. No wonder guys bailing and can't be replaced.

Originally Posted by Excargodog (Post 2574683)

The un contained engine explosion and the tragic death on the Southwest flight today was an enormously improbable event, but it sort of made me wonder. What would have happened had this occurred on an ETOPS flight between Hawai'i and LAX or SEA?

I would assume that with a window missing and rents in the fuselage, the remaining single engine would be hard pressed to maintain much cabin pressurization. If not, I would again assume that the usual drift down scenario for maximizing range with an engine loss is now N/A, since the pax need to get down to an altitude where they won't require supplemental oxygen in 10-12 minutes.

Even so, if you were midway between Hawai'i and the US in flight time (allowing for winds), do you have reserve fuel enough to make it at - say - 12,500 MSL? Or is fuel consumption high enough at that altitude that you can't? Or at least, that you'd have to make a Hob's choice and fly at some higher altitude to make it, even knowing cabin pressurization might be above where you'd like it and more vulnerable people in the cabin, like those with COPD, might be placed at risk?

I realize most people are not going to see either an engine loss OR a rapid loss of cabin pressurization in their flying career, let alone the two as simultaneous events but I can't help but wonder how you ETOPS guys (and gals) would handle such a situation.

Originally Posted by captjns (Post 2576418)

Atrococious? Very true. However, those who feel they are abused are adults. That said, no gun held to their head. No pictures, one can only hope, of pilots with small farm animals, to hold them hostage at their current place(s) of employment.

Originally Posted by CousinEddie (Post 2576591)

Yes I am referring to on the aircraft.

Here were some highlights of how you can get to 126:

SYD-DXB 14:20 block, but only counts as 6:30 towards the monthly cap.

DH 16 hours DXB-LAX. 12 hour layover at hotel. Fly red-eye LAX- Milan. Minimum layover again. DH back to DXB. Total of 6 hours towards the monthly cap.

Sounds miserable. I guess the ME3 would blame unions for FAR Part 117 rules. Never mind that it is science based.