AA flew a non-ETOPS A321S LAX-HNL on Aug 31; Oops!
- Thread starter FWAAA
- Start date
700UW said:
That could be an easy mistake. I would need to see the work cards that the mechanics use to perform the ETOPS check. If non-ETOPS A321s have all the equipment/documentation required by the ETOPS check procedure, then the check could be completed on a non-ETOPS aircraft. I suspect that is exactly what happened and that the mechanics did their jobs correctly.
The error would have been in the ETOPS check procedure itself which should have as its first step: "Verify that the registration number is on the list of ETOPS aircraft." That could have been done in the mechanics' ready room over a cup of coffee and, in this instance, the check would have been rejected right there without the mechanic ever even laying eyes on the airplane.
Glenn Quagmire
Veteran
- Apr 30, 2012
- 4,825
- 4,428
1AA
Veteran
I'm sure changes are coming in the paperwork to verify tail numbers before starting the check. We already perform a similar function with MEL's. When we have a discrepancy and it's placardable we review the MEL for ETOPS restrictions. Some MEL's will downgrade the aircraft from a 180 to a 120 minute rule and others will take it out of ETOPS all together. Then there is the 60/60 rule for dual servicing. The problem I see is that AA has a single fleet type that can not fly similar routes. This puts a strain on the schedule when aircraft become unavailable due to OTS. It's possible that this is what happened. Equipment swap and no one took notice. Our 767, 757 and A300 fleets had mixed ETOPS and non ETOPS aircraft. To my recollection we never dispatched a non ETOPS aircraft on a ETOPS flight. 30 years later this happens. Question is why?
All the holes in the Swiss Cheese lined up on thi one. It was both system failure and human failure. The aircraft routing system (moca) and the flight planning system (fos) has hooks in it to prevent non-etops aircraft being assigned to etops flights. This system, has worked well in the past for the 757/767 fleets. It appears, the hooks and traps had not been set for this new fleet. That is the system failure. The human failure involves the 3 legged stool of certificated airman. The pilot, the AMT and the dispatcher. I cannot speak to the failures of the pilot or amt as I am not one, but I am a dispatcher, so I will explain their perspective. I did not speak directly to the dispatcher of this flight, so my comments are my own.
When the dispatcher pulled up the format to plan the flight, an aircraft was assigned. There is no indication to the dispatcher on the flight plan format if that aircraft is or is not etops. On the AA side there are 600 plus tail numbers in many fleets and sub-fleets. You can not know every ability or the aircraft by tail number only. You have to have some faith in the system (see system failure above) in that if the aircraft was assigned, it's good to go. The dispatcher planned the flight as if it were an etops flight, but did not know the aircraft was not qualified for it. I am sure there is some level of culpability, but I believe, for the dispatcher, it was low based on the system failure. Should be obvious to all that something at the dispatcher level should change.
When the dispatcher pulled up the format to plan the flight, an aircraft was assigned. There is no indication to the dispatcher on the flight plan format if that aircraft is or is not etops. On the AA side there are 600 plus tail numbers in many fleets and sub-fleets. You can not know every ability or the aircraft by tail number only. You have to have some faith in the system (see system failure above) in that if the aircraft was assigned, it's good to go. The dispatcher planned the flight as if it were an etops flight, but did not know the aircraft was not qualified for it. I am sure there is some level of culpability, but I believe, for the dispatcher, it was low based on the system failure. Should be obvious to all that something at the dispatcher level should change.
http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2015/09/11/american-airlines-plane-that-made-lax-to-honolulu-flight-lacked-safety-protocols/
Are any on these systems on the ETOPS job card to check and test?On Aug. 31, the airline sent a twin-engine A321 on the five-and-a-half hour flight across the Pacific Ocean, despite the fact that the plane lacked safety equipment required by federal authorities for all planes making long flights over water. Those items included oxygen tanks and a special fire-suppression system.
The violation was an unusual transgression, said aviation expert and reporter Brian Sumers, who first reported the incident on his blog.
“Airlines just don’t make these sorts of mistakes,” Sumers said.
With the correct safety equipment, flights are certified to fly for as long as three hours with just one engine in order to reach an alternate airport in the case of an emergencyhttp://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2015...-to-honolulu-flight-lacked-safety-protocols/#. Without that equipment, flights are restricted to making long flights over land. The carrier has both categories of planes but sent the wrong one in this case.
1AA
Veteran
Cargo fire suppression for ETOPS is different than non; ETOPS must have 2 bottles.
As far as AMTs putting log pages into the computer- that didn't happen way back when I was there.
As far as AMTs putting log pages into the computer- that didn't happen way back when I was there.
I am ABSOLUTELY NO fan of ETOPS. !!! It's like saying that....." It NEVER CAN HAPPEN"
Now I know that eolesen will be on here shortyly ' tub thumping' about the fact that thier have been NO Ditchings. AND up to this point, he'll be right.
BUT,
When you look geographically at the USA, flying Etops in an East direction, you've got a better chance, even if you put down on the F'n Sable Island SAND BAR, or Greenland somewhere. Going South could hardly ever be a problem..
Even going North, over the pole, we'll Never know what secret AF bases are up there, plus a smooth patch of Ice.. Anywhere near the aleutians, no problem. Helll, even on an ultra long haul 777 (LAX-SYD), you've got landing options.
B U T, a six hour straight shot especially Westbound (with difficult winds) With NO F'n place to land, is PUSHING THE ENVELOPE. And Even at 70 years old, I and others WILL (sadly) see the day, of a Water Ditching. You take a (normally 6 hour westbound from LAX to HNL, then factor Really 'Reaaly tough westerlies',(now your looking at maybe a 7 hour flight) then your playing Russian Roulette. They better have MANY MANY Covered Life Rafts, and pray to Jesus, that there is a Navy vessel, or freighter near by !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm NOT breaking em' on the 321, my theory goes for any 2 engine a/c on the Lax-Hnl route.
Now I know that eolesen will be on here shortyly ' tub thumping' about the fact that thier have been NO Ditchings. AND up to this point, he'll be right.
BUT,
When you look geographically at the USA, flying Etops in an East direction, you've got a better chance, even if you put down on the F'n Sable Island SAND BAR, or Greenland somewhere. Going South could hardly ever be a problem..
Even going North, over the pole, we'll Never know what secret AF bases are up there, plus a smooth patch of Ice.. Anywhere near the aleutians, no problem. Helll, even on an ultra long haul 777 (LAX-SYD), you've got landing options.
B U T, a six hour straight shot especially Westbound (with difficult winds) With NO F'n place to land, is PUSHING THE ENVELOPE. And Even at 70 years old, I and others WILL (sadly) see the day, of a Water Ditching. You take a (normally 6 hour westbound from LAX to HNL, then factor Really 'Reaaly tough westerlies',(now your looking at maybe a 7 hour flight) then your playing Russian Roulette. They better have MANY MANY Covered Life Rafts, and pray to Jesus, that there is a Navy vessel, or freighter near by !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm NOT breaking em' on the 321, my theory goes for any 2 engine a/c on the Lax-Hnl route.
You're claiming a 777 has more landing options LAX SYD than LAX HNL? Last I checked they both head in the same direction.
700UW said:
Well, yes. Safety is relative, though.
They're safer than driving your car to the airport, but probably not as safe as 3- and 4-engine aircraft traveling those same routes. Not nearly as safe as staying home and drinking beer in front of the TV.
I don't know if I totally agree with your statement concerning sitting in front of the TV drinking beer. Some of the "news" broadcast on TV can be very upsetting and cause high(er) blood pressure.
Similar threads
