ETOPS question...
04-19-2018, 12:57 PM
#22
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2008
Posts: 770
Originally Posted by Ship741
So you don't even ensure that you have flight plan fuel prior to pushback?
1) At my carrier, if there is any deficiency in fuel at any ETOPS point, addendum fuel is added and clearly shown on the first page of the OFP in the required block fuel break down.
2) On a separate page each Entry, ETP (sometimes multiple in the same segment) and Exit is shown, along with planned fuel vs diversion requirement, whether an icing penalty is applied, what the more critical failure would be (engine failure, depressurization, or both) as well as diversion airport weather for all relevant windows of suitability.
3) My point is despite throrough planning, I will always uplift extra if I feel conditions of the route warrant it.
As a side note, when the ETOPs additional fuel is added to meet any deficiencies, it’s like free destination fuel, as you would only burn it should you divert in ETOPS. Good airmanship would mean I would subtract this from any holding/weather fuel I may need for the destination.
04-20-2018, 03:48 AM
#23
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2014
Posts: 1,681
Originally Posted by RemoveB4flght
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.
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.
Interesting position to be in.
04-20-2018, 04:04 AM
#24
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: B-737NG preferably in first class with a glass of champagne and caviar
Posts: 5,909
Originally Posted by CousinEddie
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.
If otherwise, share which ME3 you fly with and share first hand information? Second hand infor from the Publix Cashier doesn’t wash.
04-20-2018, 08:17 AM
#25
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2013
Position: On the hotel shuttle
Posts: 5,812
Originally Posted by captjns
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.
If otherwise, share which ME3 you fly with and share first hand information? Second hand infor from the Publix Cashier doesn’t wash.
04-20-2018, 08:40 AM
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: B-737NG preferably in first class with a glass of champagne and caviar
Posts: 5,909
Originally Posted by GogglesPisano
Regardless. 126 hrs/month in an airplane is atrocious. No wonder guys bailing and can't be replaced.
04-20-2018, 09:18 AM
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,273
Originally Posted by Excargodog
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.
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.
04-20-2018, 01:10 PM
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2012
Posts: 1,083
Originally Posted by captjns
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.
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.
04-21-2018, 03:33 AM
#29
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: B-737NG preferably in first class with a glass of champagne and caviar
Posts: 5,909
Originally Posted by CousinEddie
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.
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.
Not to be padentic, I could not find nonstop operations from LAX to Milan on their website. They do, however offer service to Milan, which is operated by Alaska Airlines (LAX - SFO - JFK), then onwards to Milan with EK. The itinerary shows the flight departing LAX at 06:15.
That said, 12 hour rest in a hotel may be a bit of an inaccurate statement, wouldn’t you agree?.
My last ultra long haul operation has been many years ago... no my cuppa. I opted contracts offering medium range flights. But then again, some enjoy the ULH flights. To each his their own, I guess.
Last edited by captjns; 04-21-2018 at 03:49 AM.
04-21-2018, 04:02 PM
#30
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2012
Posts: 1,083
Yes off topic. I re-read the post where this was discussed. US West Coast was mentioned, not LAX specifically. SEA may be what was referred to. The poster must have been talking about a DH to SEA followed by returning to DXB 12 hours later, not going to Europe from anywhere on the US West Coast. I assume two different trip types were being talked about. The end result is the same: miserable schedules and burnout because their regulations (or lack thereof) allow it.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
RVSM Certified
Flight Schools and Training
22
02-27-2009 12:04 PM
