Lifeisgood

Did you mean HDG? Hydraulic driven generator? Is 767 even ETOPs-worthy to get on the tracks with center hyd sys failure?

BlueMoon

Question from someone who only flies very limited international (Canada and occasionally Mexico), what type of penalty could the FAA levy on the crew who is most likely flying on a JAA license? Kind of curious as to what the FAA's jurisdiction would be in this instance.

Roadkill

Ball Breaker, I'm leaning towards agreeing with DalDude on this... my unit gave out approximately 600 sets of manday orders a year, and in order for several exemptions to apply, the order had to state "in support of contingency operations" on the back. If it was left off your order, you had to get an ammendment for it. However, from about 2008 and on, this sort of "manday" was almost non-existent from AETC at least, they were very limited in number. There was a limit of how many mandays you could work in one year, 132 or something? Which could go up to 178ish if it was contingency ops. And then they increased it to 1000 MD in any 4 year period (I think).
In any case, orders that satisfied the title 10 "in support of contingency ops" specifically had to state it on the back, and this was an item that was checked and double-checked and argued up the chain and back down, result being these days/orders grew increasingly fewer through last year. Having orders of this sort gave a tax benefit as well as allowing more days / year, I believe.

Of course we all hope that no one is lawyering up to argue about every order over a > 5 year period, and that all our bros make it back to the property safely... but the fact remains, if you DO go over 5 years on mil leave, there are complex rules in place that didn't just show up for no reason, and it's possible to not be in compliance---it behooves you to check it out carefully, not assume, and be cautious with your continued employment risk if you're in this category.

Lifeisgood

IMHO, ICAO would probably step in and put pressure on JAA. JAA and Canadians will fine the company if the airplane indeed was not ETOPs-worthy on the tracks.

Roadkill

Timbo, thanks for the words on the unstacking, the reserve tie-in makes sense.

acl65pilot

We and the Europeans, like many controlling agencies grant reciprocity for those licensed in another country to operate a flagged vessel from that country in to our/their land.

Depending on how the QRH et al is written, and how it varies from the Boeing manuals will be very important in the LOT case. On a ETOPS jets like the 767-300ER, crossing an ocean and exercising anything over 60 min etops with a center hyd failure, which most definitely effect ETOPS as it is recognized by all of the licensing agencies, would result in the FAA and the JAA both asking questions of the LOT crew, and dispatch.

Generally speaking, the 767-300ER is a 180 min etops jets, as things become inoperative after departure, you revert to 120 or 60 min etops. If, LOT had one ETP and dispatched at 180 mins, they were most likely past their etp, and continued on. No problem there. If they dispatched 180/120 with two etp's, their divert field should have been LPLA, or BIKF. This fact will be key. The findings will coming out in the investigation, but how they were dispatched, will play a significant role in Monday Morning quarterbacking this.

Waves

Did you know that losing two engines on one side of a four engine aircraft is not the same as losing one engine on a two engine aircraft? Both the assymetry and drag is greater creating higher fuel consumption, controllability is more difficult, and obviously this creates a loss or degradation of redundant systems. Did you know that the odds of losing another engine are the exact same as losing the first engine? Why would you continue to your destination with either? Would you continue to your destination with an aircraft producing only 3/4 of it's rated thrust and a inoperable engine producing nothing but drag? I'm not paid enough and I'm not brave enough to continue with an engine out. Not even with four engines. Now maybe one engine out on a B-52, just maybe.

daldude

I'm sorry I don't currently have access to the various letters I referenced they are in my Air Force office. But, please be careful in assuming that 12301(d ) orders are exempt (I thought there was an additional paragraph from the letter you referenced that said something like if you orders are exempt they should say these orders are in support of so and so contingency. Then it goes onto say that if you believe this statement was mistakenly left off contact so and so for review and possible amendment ). I agree with you in that how can you not directly or indirectly support the war if your on orders... but rest assured it does not work that way. Please contact Air Force Reserve USERRA affairs for clarification. Having dealt directly with this vary issue in the last 4 months, I feel pretty confident in my views. However, if your orders do say you are in direct or indirect support you are good to go. But, just 12301(d) will not do it. I have know desire to argue the point, I would just recommend anybody contact USERRA affairs, have a copy of your orders they will ask you to fax them for review and tell you if you are exempt. Make sure you clarify before you have been gone 5 consecutive years from Delta.

Waves

acl, All correct, except you cannot change your ETOPS once airborne. Only prior to dispatch can the dispatcher change your ETOPS level.

Waves

Boeing changed the HMG acronym to HDG. Same generator. I would have to look it up, but I'm almost certain that it is not ETOPS qualified with the center hydraulic system inop. I think a big key here is did they get the failure after one and a half hours or did they get it four hours after airborne as some articles suggest?