Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

American Airlines flew the wrong plane across the Pacific Ocean

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • American Airlines flew the wrong plane across the Pacific Ocean

    Oops....

    American Airlines has launched an internal investigation into procedures after pilots mistakenly flew the wrong plane across the Pacific Ocean without proper certification.
    https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/...pacific-ocean/

  • #2
    Better here:
    http://avherald.com/h?article=48c48e0d&opt=0

    Small incident in itself since the increased risk was negligible.

    But a big eye opener regarding AA procedures, or maybe the discipline of complying with them. How could something as big as this slip through the system?

    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

    Comment


    • #3
      in line with evan's criticism of bad reporting, i take exception to the way the headline appears to blame the pilots, as if they simply look out at the tarmac and pick the ac they wanna fly.

      this was obviously a dispatch problem.

      as for degree of risk, not all that many years ago, i was flying from MSY to MIA and we were forced to stay over land instead of flying across the GOM because the 737 we were assigned (on AA) was not over water certified, i.e., it had no life rafts.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
        in line with evan's criticism of bad reporting, i take exception to the way the headline appears to blame the pilots, as if they simply look out at the tarmac and pick the ac they wanna fly.

        this was obviously a dispatch problem.
        Yes, but ETOPS airplanes are marked outside and placarded in the cockpit and there are (or should be) specific procedures to ensure that the ETOPS flight you are about to make is in an ETOPS plane.

        Sure, big gap at Planning and Dispatch. But the pilots were probably the last layer of defense that had a duty to detect it.

        as for degree of risk, not all that many years ago, i was flying from MSY to MIA and we were forced to stay over land instead of flying across the GOM because the 737 we were assigned (on AA) was not over water certified, i.e., it had no life rafts.
        That the plane was not ETOPS doesn't mean that it didn't have rafts (which I don't know if it had or not). I think that in the A321 the slides are the rafts so that would not be a problem. The life vests could be a problem, though. Which again, that it was not ETOPS doesn't mean that they didn't have them. The requirement to have life vests and rafts is linked to overwater distance much more stringent than non-ETOPS limits, and on the other hand ETOPS is not linked to overwater but to time to diversion airports. Technically speaking, an ETOPS flight is not necessarily required to have vests and rafts.

        And even in the worst case, the chances of ending in the water are very very slim, let alone one where the live vests and rafts would be useful.
        If you do it systematically, it is different. But one single flight, and that that precise flight had that kind of emergency... What are the odds?

        --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
        --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
          How could something as big as this slip through the system?
          That tacky new livery slipped through the system, didn't it. Mega-merger-itis. The head doesn't know what the tail is doing.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
            Yes, but ETOPS airplanes are marked outside and placarded in the cockpit and there are (or should be) specific procedures to ensure that the ETOPS flight you are about to make is in an ETOPS plane.

            Sure, big gap at Planning and Dispatch. But the pilots were probably the last layer of defense that had a duty to detect it....
            I once remember a thread, long ago, where In The Shade and a mechanic were going at it...

            It was a beautiful back and forth rant with comments about "Pilot in Command" and who's signature was the final authority.

            There was much use of bold font, along with lots of reminders of things we outsiders only parlour talk about.

            Sadly, this was probably at the obscure discussion forum which shared it's name with AirDisaster.com and is now lost.
            Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
              Yes, but ETOPS airplanes are marked outside and placarded in the cockpit and there are (or should be) specific procedures to ensure that the ETOPS flight you are about to make is in an ETOPS plane.

              Sure, big gap at Planning and Dispatch. But the pilots were probably the last layer of defense that had a duty to detect it.



              That the plane was not ETOPS doesn't mean that it didn't have rafts (which I don't know if it had or not). I think that in the A321 the slides are the rafts so that would not be a problem. The life vests could be a problem, though. Which again, that it was not ETOPS doesn't mean that they didn't have them. The requirement to have life vests and rafts is linked to overwater distance much more stringent than non-ETOPS limits, and on the other hand ETOPS is not linked to overwater but to time to diversion airports. Technically speaking, an ETOPS flight is not necessarily required to have vests and rafts.

              And even in the worst case, the chances of ending in the water are very very slim, let alone one where the live vests and rafts would be useful.
              If you do it systematically, it is different. But one single flight, and that that precise flight had that kind of emergency... What are the odds?
              i never said ETOPS, we were told specifically, no life rafts. no life rafts? no over GOM flight. big deal. we were airborne about 20 minutes longer, maybe less. in the 737 there is at least one life raft in the ceiling over the aisle near the front.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
                i never said ETOPS, we were told specifically, no life rafts. no life rafts? no over GOM flight. big deal. we were airborne about 20 minutes longer, maybe less. in the 737 there is at least one life raft in the ceiling over the aisle near the front.
                Context, Context, Context.

                "The plane" that Gabriel was referencing was not your plane but the AA plane that was not ETOPS certified, that was sent to Hawaii and made news headlines...it probably had life rafts.

                I know, it lacked "The non ETOPS plane AA sent to Hawaii, here-to-for referred to as "Exhibit A" did/did not have rafts where for with, the plane ridden by Tee Vee, forth with termed "Passenger B" posted in Jetphotos thread 635009, here forth with termed "Discussion Forum Post C" which did not have necessary over-water safety gear per FAR 191.something.paragrapbh.something on or about [date] and which altered it's traditional course (Exhibit D) for an overland route depicted in plate F....

                Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                Comment

                Working...
                X