LAX Pilot

It's not an issue of safe or not. If we really wanted to be extra safe, we would put 2 APU's on the aircraft in case APU #1 failed to start.

For that matter, why not have 3 or 4 APUs?

Think of it this way, if we had 4 APUs on an aircraft, and 2 were inop, almost nobody would take the jet because it wouldn't be considered safe. Even though there were 2 operating APUs.

It's all about comparison and how humans make decisions.

SpecialTracking

Your counting on the HMG at night over 30w? Best of luck if you have to fly with some sUAL f/os.

680crewchief

There was a time I was fine with accepting an airplane with an MEL'd TCAS. Almost obliterated a Baron and a 1900 over Arizona. Luckily the FO was flying and pulled up at the last moment. If I had been flying, we would have collided because of the location of the Baron respective to the cockpit. Had a discussion with the Chief Pilot regarding the TCAS MEL and informed said Chief Pilot I would not be accepting an aircraft with the TCAS MEL'd in the future.

uaav8r

Here's one 15yr UAL F/O who's not leaving the gate with any captain planning on taking a jet with an inop APU across the pond at night. In addition to absolutely being uncomfortable with it, I would be totally ashamed to bring such a P.O.S. to the next crew. I think things are going to get very interesting around this place next year when we start "working together". While I'm at it, here's a question. In AMS the other day I saw a CAL captain flight planning to IAH all by himself. No F/O's in sight. Seemed like a nice enough fellow but...please tell me the entire crew reviews the MX, WX, etc., and mutually agrees to the fuel load and not just the captain. I hope this was an isolated incident and not the norm.

Adlerdriver

Otto,
I'm going to have to join the dog pile. Your statement above is correct but where you choose to fly the aircraft, the wx and options available to you should something else fail HAVE to be part of the decision process.

I used to fly for UAL and halfway along on an ORD-EWR leg we had to disconnect the CSD on one of our main engine driven generators. Simple failure, simple fix. We cranked the APU and kept going. If we didn't have it available, the checklist directed us to land at nearest suitable.

Doing a 90 right and diverting into CVG wouldn't have been a big deal and certainly wouldn't be a reason not to take an MELed APU on that leg.

Based on my ORD-EWR experience, it was easy to understand when my Captain refused a jet with an inop APU on an ANC-ORD leg about a year later.

Dealing with the same scenario at 30W or even over parts of the Canadian/Alaskan wilderness would not be something I would want to set myself up to deal with by accepting the same MEL. Do you really not see the difference?

Ottopilot

Sure, but losing one of 4 is the issue. Even the "What-if" 2 of 4. I only need one generator to divert in an emergency. I'd be diverting if I was 2 of 4, so all this talk of me flying at 30W on battery power is getting funny. The quality and redundancy of systems today is why we even have ETOPS.

Of all my NAT flights over the years, I've done two without APU. No other "what-ifs" or failures applied. It was safe. I'd be more worried about flying a 737 from California to Hawaii (with the APU).

Adlerdriver

Otto,
I don't know about anyone else, but I'm not talking about being on battery power at 30W.

My old UAL flight manual for the 757 says you must land at nearest suitable if you're down to "one main AC power source". The Fedex 757 book says the same thing. I could be wrong so maybe a UAL bubba can jump in but I don't think the pre-merger UAL considered the HMG a "main AC power source". So that means on a full-up jet you only ever have 3 main AC power sources. Isn't that HMG an emergency power source in the event you have a total AC failure? Hardly the same thing as the APU. You keep saying "4 generators" but I wouldn't consider the HMG an equivalent to an IDG or APU.

So, then back to the 30W discussion. You go without an APU and have to do a CSD disco at 30W and you're not getting to your destination. You're not on battery power but because of a relatively simple electrical failure, you're heading to KEF or EINN or whatever the nearest suitable is.

That's not okay in my opinion and I'm pretty sure that's the issue with most guy here who are disagreeing with you.

strfyr51

tere is no provision for flying ETOPS without the APU, ON ANY UAL airplane,
Beyond 60 minutes the apu Must operate normally. Across the North Atlantic the apu could be inop as there is a route that is not ETOPS but across the Pacific to Hawaii Etc, The ETOPS is 180 Minimum. Check your MEL references if you doubt but you'll find I'm right.

Phantom Flyer

I don't know who you fly for Otto, but at United, an operational APU was required for all ETOPS operations. Perhaps the Ops Specs have been changed with the marriage to CAL.

In any case, it's a matter of adhering to your Ops Specs.

The 787 is different. It's grounded !

G'Luck Mates