Comments for Flyerist http://www.flyerist.com The blog of a flight dispatcher Wed, 12 Jan 2011 05:45:51 -0500 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 Comment on Boeing 787 Dreamliner: 330 minute ETOPS? by palmiator http://www.flyerist.com/archives/52/comment-page-1#comment-12 palmiator Wed, 12 Jan 2011 05:45:51 +0000 http://www.flyerist.com/?p=52#comment-12 Dear Fly, I read with interest your post above. We also operate across the North Pacific, albeit less frequently. One of the alternate airports we use is, Midway, PMDY. I was wondering if you, as frequent operator, have any information WRT to this airport other than those published in AIPs, Jeppesen or LIDO? Any info is much appreciated. I can be reached at palm.aviator[at]gmail.com Best regards, PA Dear Fly,

I read with interest your post above. We also operate across the North Pacific, albeit less frequently. One of the alternate airports we use is, Midway, PMDY. I was wondering if you, as frequent operator, have any information WRT to this airport other than those published in AIPs, Jeppesen or LIDO?

Any info is much appreciated.

I can be reached at palm.aviator[at]gmail.com

Best regards,
PA

]]> Comment on Houston, we have a problem? Flying a 787 to Auckland and ETOPS. by CPDLC http://www.flyerist.com/archives/27/comment-page-1#comment-10 CPDLC Sun, 12 Sep 2010 21:59:19 +0000 http://www.flyerist.com/?p=27#comment-10 ETOPS 180 maybe a moot point withe 787. Rumour has it that with the new geneeration of RR and GE engines, ETOPS endurance is not a limiting factor as withe the 767, 777 etc. The real issue is cargo fire suppression capabilities and diversion times-so if more fire bottle are installed, the longer the ETOPS or now better known EROPS issues. The 747-400 is still subject to diversion time limitataions despite carrying more fire bottles than a 767- but it can fly indefinitely with an engine failure - yaw and drag would reduce its useful fuel range rather than having to land at "the nearest suitable airport" criteria that drive current twin engine operating rules. So flying a 787 from IAH-AKL won't necessarily be affected by ETOPS rules vis a vis diversion-it's probabaly going to be a negotiated item between Boeing, FAA, CAA, ALPA and the Air Carrier who have to show the pros and cons in the risk assessment of route authority. ETOPS 180 maybe a moot point withe 787. Rumour has it that with the new geneeration of RR and GE engines, ETOPS endurance is not a limiting factor as withe the 767, 777 etc. The real issue is cargo fire suppression capabilities and diversion times-so if more fire bottle are installed, the longer the ETOPS or now better known EROPS issues. The 747-400 is still subject to diversion time limitataions despite carrying more fire bottles than a 767- but it can fly indefinitely with an engine failure – yaw and drag would reduce its useful fuel range rather than having to land at “the nearest suitable airport” criteria that drive current twin engine operating rules.

So flying a 787 from IAH-AKL won’t necessarily be affected by ETOPS rules vis a vis diversion-it’s probabaly going to be a negotiated item between Boeing, FAA, CAA, ALPA and the Air Carrier who have to show the pros and cons in the risk assessment of route authority.

]]> Comment on Houston, we have a problem? Flying a 787 to Auckland and ETOPS. by dcdeacon7 http://www.flyerist.com/archives/27/comment-page-1#comment-3 dcdeacon7 Thu, 27 May 2010 23:29:10 +0000 http://www.flyerist.com/?p=27#comment-3 Very interesting...sounds like there's not much wiggle room to get around the ETOPS rule? Very interesting…sounds like there’s not much wiggle room to get around the ETOPS rule?

]]> Comment on Philly delay by dcdeacon7 http://www.flyerist.com/archives/20/comment-page-1#comment-2 dcdeacon7 Thu, 27 May 2010 23:27:22 +0000 http://www.flyerist.com/archives/20#comment-2 Hilarious. Thanks for sharing. Hilarious. Thanks for sharing.

]]>