SWA Overwater certification ?
08-24-2013 | 01:20 PM
#21
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
From: 717 Capt.
As of August 11th, we have been doing Class II navigation through WATRS airspace. Taken directly from the bulletin;
So yes, incorrect equipment suffix notwithstanding, the crew stating that they DID have the proper equipment because they were in an ETOPS aircraft is 100% correct. Your assumption that the crew didn't understand the distinction between WATRS and ETOPS certification is not.
Chief.
So yes, incorrect equipment suffix notwithstanding, the crew stating that they DID have the proper equipment because they were in an ETOPS aircraft is 100% correct. Your assumption that the crew didn't understand the distinction between WATRS and ETOPS certification is not.
Chief.
This just got less funny and more scary.
08-24-2013 | 01:21 PM
#22
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 323
Likes: 0
From: B737 Captain
Nice drive-by post.
Care to elaborate?
------------------------------
No? Then I will.
The crew correctly stated that because they were in an ETOPS equipped -800, they were in fact permitted in to WATRS airspace. That is how our ops specs read, even if there was an incorrect equipment suffix tagged to that flight.
Care to elaborate?
------------------------------
No? Then I will.
The crew correctly stated that because they were in an ETOPS equipped -800, they were in fact permitted in to WATRS airspace. That is how our ops specs read, even if there was an incorrect equipment suffix tagged to that flight.
Last edited by 4th Level; 08-24-2013 at 01:47 PM. Reason: Added elaboration since Frank didn't.
08-24-2013 | 03:41 PM
#23
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Nice drive-by post.
Care to elaborate?
------------------------------
No? Then I will.
The crew correctly stated that because they were in an ETOPS equipped -800, they were in fact permitted in to WATRS airspace. That is how our ops specs read, even if there was an incorrect equipment suffix tagged to that flight.
Care to elaborate?
------------------------------
No? Then I will.
The crew correctly stated that because they were in an ETOPS equipped -800, they were in fact permitted in to WATRS airspace. That is how our ops specs read, even if there was an incorrect equipment suffix tagged to that flight.
That might be what your Ops Specs says, but just having the equipment on board ain't complying with the requirements to operate there . . .the Controller was doing them a favor . . . just sayin'.
08-24-2013 | 11:51 PM
#24
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 323
Likes: 0
From: B737 Captain
Let me try this again.
All of our ETOPS equipped -800's have all the required equipment for, have been approved for, and are currently operating in, Class II and WATRS airspace.
If you still are unclear, you're on your own.
08-25-2013 | 06:01 AM
#25
Line Holder
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 889
Likes: 0
From: Retired FDX MD11 Capt
A current flight in WATRS airspace;
Southwest (WN) #1699 ? 24-Aug-2013 ? KBWI - TJSJ / SJU Flight Tracker ? FlightAware
Southwest (WN) #1699 ? 24-Aug-2013 ? KBWI - TJSJ / SJU Flight Tracker ? FlightAware
Just kidding. Enjoy that great Caribbean flying.
Regards,
Clutch
08-25-2013 | 09:44 AM
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
From: 717 Capt.
Nice drive-by post.
Care to elaborate?
------------------------------
No? Then I will.
The crew correctly stated that because they were in an ETOPS equipped -800, they were in fact permitted in to WATRS airspace. That is how our ops specs read, even if there was an incorrect equipment suffix tagged to that flight.
Care to elaborate?
------------------------------
No? Then I will.
The crew correctly stated that because they were in an ETOPS equipped -800, they were in fact permitted in to WATRS airspace. That is how our ops specs read, even if there was an incorrect equipment suffix tagged to that flight.
Stating to ATC that "we got ETOPs" while enroute to anywhere in the Caribbean (Central or S. America for that matter) from the east coast makes the crew look like they don't know what they're doing...therefore scary.
ETOPs certification is largely a maintenance inspection procedure and less so a assurance of any required equipment to operate in a non-radar environment. To state to a controller that "we got ETOPs" shows the crews lack of understanding. I can't think of a single instance when a crew would voluntarily need to tell a controller that.
08-25-2013 | 09:52 AM
#27
Da Hudge
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,473
Likes: 0
From: Poodle Whisperer
Yeah, I'll elaborate.
Stating to ATC that "we got ETOPs" while enroute to anywhere in the Caribbean (Central or S. America for that matter) from the east coast makes the crew look like they don't know what they're doing...therefore scary.
ETOPs certification is largely a maintenance inspection procedure and less so a assurance of any required equipment to operate in a non-radar environment. To state to a controller that "we got ETOPs" shows the crews lack of understanding. I can't think of a single instance when a crew would voluntarily need to tell a controller that.
Stating to ATC that "we got ETOPs" while enroute to anywhere in the Caribbean (Central or S. America for that matter) from the east coast makes the crew look like they don't know what they're doing...therefore scary.
ETOPs certification is largely a maintenance inspection procedure and less so a assurance of any required equipment to operate in a non-radar environment. To state to a controller that "we got ETOPs" shows the crews lack of understanding. I can't think of a single instance when a crew would voluntarily need to tell a controller that.
08-25-2013 | 11:43 AM
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 323
Likes: 0
From: B737 Captain
Yeah, I'll elaborate.
Stating to ATC that "we got ETOPs" while enroute to anywhere in the Caribbean (Central or S. America for that matter) from the east coast makes the crew look like they don't know what they're doing...therefore scary.
ETOPs certification is largely a maintenance inspection procedure and less so a assurance of any required equipment to operate in a non-radar environment. To state to a controller that "we got ETOPs" shows the crews lack of understanding. I can't think of a single instance when a crew would voluntarily need to tell a controller that.
Stating to ATC that "we got ETOPs" while enroute to anywhere in the Caribbean (Central or S. America for that matter) from the east coast makes the crew look like they don't know what they're doing...therefore scary.
ETOPs certification is largely a maintenance inspection procedure and less so a assurance of any required equipment to operate in a non-radar environment. To state to a controller that "we got ETOPs" shows the crews lack of understanding. I can't think of a single instance when a crew would voluntarily need to tell a controller that.
Poor choice of wording on their part? Sure.
Lack of understanding about ETOPS? Doubtful.
Yes, we're all aware that true ETOPS certification is largely a mx function.
Try this on for elaboration (assuming what was reported they said is even accurate - given the SWA haters here, dubious at best);
"We've got ETOPS (equipment and therefore can enter WATRS)".
Currently only Check Airman are doing the WATRS flights. While they're far from perfect, I suspect the extra training and attention they received prior to starting the service has them with an adequate understanding of what they're doing.
All of this over what someone says they heard.
And hardly "scary".
08-25-2013 | 11:46 AM
#30
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 323
Likes: 0
From: B737 Captain
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
