AA flew a non-ETOPS A321S LAX-HNL on Aug 31; Oops!

[Rogallo]

Here is the question. Is the mechanic required to verify with anyone that the acft is ETOPS capable before an ETOPS flight?
 
Or is he to assume since dispatch scheduled it for an ETOPS flight that it is? 

 

[MetalMover]

I am not blaming the mechanic, but if you took Human Resource Management, we did at US, it goes over the ValuJet crash, and how many links in the chain of events could have prevented those O2 generators from ever being loaded.
 
Every person involved has a connection to the incident, and all will be questioned.

Maybe they need to be blamed. If we screw up, we should face the music. But what I am saying is that since someone scheduled the aircraft on that route, they may have not thought twice about it. maybe the scheduling system should have prevented it? maybe we are relying to much on automation?

 

[MetalMover]

Here is the question. Is the mechanic required to verify with anyone that the acft is ETOPS capable before an ETOPS flight?
 
Or is he to assume since dispatch scheduled it for an ETOPS flight that it is? 

I have to say that the mechanic should know. The aircraft nose gear door says ETOPS, the log book says ETOPS and even the SAFE system says ETOPS.  

 

[WorldTraveler]

while all of that might be true, mechanics don't dispatch flights.

Seems like Dispatch or Flight Control or whatever AA calls it has to be responsible for this.

Pilots should have some system to verify the correct airplane is being used for the mission they are flying.


Lots of people failed to catch something was wrong and I doubt it will happen again - but the question is why so many people didn't get it and why the people who should have been most responsible made the mistake.

and when there were so many failures by so many people, it is doubtful the FAA is going to come after a mechanic. or perhaps any other single person.

They are going to come after processes and procedures.

 

[MetalMover]

while all of that might be true, mechanics don't dispatch flights.

Seems like Dispatch or Flight Control or whatever AA calls it has to be responsible for this.

Pilots should have some system to verify the correct airplane is being used for the mission they are flying.


Lots of people failed to catch something was wrong and I doubt it will happen again - but the question is why so many people didn't get it and why the people who should have been most responsible made the mistake.

and when there were so many failures by so many people, it is doubtful the FAA is going to come after a mechanic. or perhaps any other single person.

They are going to come after processes and procedures.

True, plenty of blame to go around.

 

[Rogallo]

I have to say that the mechanic should know. The aircraft nose gear door says ETOPS, the log book says ETOPS and even the SAFE system says ETOPS.  

 
You are missing the point. Just because it says ETOPS on all those things doesn't necessarily mean it was ETOPS capable at that time.
 
Ever heard of an acft being downgraded?
 
It's not the mechanics fault on this one. There are MIC entries for ETOPS checks at both LAX and HNL. It's obvious the acft wasn't capable for ETOPS!

 

[1AA]

I know what PMUS mechanics do for an ETOPS flight, I worked along side them for 10 years on the international flights.
 
And I worked the Phase Check in CLT for the 767 and the Phase Check in PHL for the A333s.
So if an AA mechanic did an ETOPS check on and that wasn't ETOPS knowing it was an ETOPS flight is going to be held responsible for his part, might even get an LOI from the FAA, if I was him he needs to fill out an ASAP form.
Guess you took the ground version of crew resource management, it's all about the chain of events and how to prevent an incident.

You are clueless and know nothing about what we do at AA. It is the responsibility of the router at the equipment desk to make sure which aircraft can go on which routing. Not the flight department or the maintenance department. Educate yourself. That's what you tell us among other things that I will refrain from saying.

 

[MetalMover]

 
You are missing the point. Just because it says ETOPS on all those things doesn't necessarily mean it was ETOPS capable at that time.
 
Ever heard of an acft being downgraded?
 
It's not the mechanics fault on this one. There are MIC entries for ETOPS checks at both LAX and HNL. It's obvious the acft wasn't capable for ETOPS!

It would not get the ETOPS certification if it wasn't ETOPS  capable. I have never seen that happen and I have been around long before ETOPS existed. I have never seen an ETOPS aircraft downgraded once certified for ETOPS.
But I will admit that there is more to this story than we know. I think a contributing factor is that the A321 going ETOPS is a new program. As a matter of fact I saw my first one recently and saw the designation on the log book. We are not accustomed to having an A321 go ETOPS, especially since we have only been flying the aircraft a relatively short time.

 

[1AA]

I am not blaming the mechanic, but if you took Human Resource Management, we did at US, it goes over the ValuJet crash, and how many links in the chain of events could have prevented those O2 generators from ever being loaded.
 
Every person involved has a connection to the incident, and all will be questioned.

I'm surprised your not blaming aircraft maintenance since you hate us.

 

[700UW]

Are you drinking?
 
I clearly state, I am not blaming the mechanic, can you not comprehend what you read?

 

[1AA]

Are you drinking?
 
I clearly state, I am not blaming the mechanic, can you not comprehend what you read?

Did you read my post? Read it again sloooooooowly. What did I say?

 

[MetalMover]

I'm surprised your not blaming aircraft maintenance since you hate us.

I gotta agree with this one. He did say he is not blaming the mechanics. Personally I feel they should bear at least SOME of the responsibility for this IF IN FACT IT WAS AVOIDABLE. And I AM a mechanic. If we want to be treated and compensated as professionals, we need to admit to our mistakes if and when they occur and if and when we are ACTUALLY at fault.
 
But I believe there is a legitimate reason for this one. No harm done to human life or equipment.

 

[1AA]

The router at the equipment desk is the one who has plenty to explain. If you give me a ETOPS on a 757 from jfk to man. I follow the ETOPS paperwork. Flight follows their paperwork. Off you go. Unless you have a MEL or CDL restriction or a time restriction for some kind of inspection we do not have any documentation to follow that is part of the ETOPS check we sign for. I'm sure changes will be added for us and flight to verify ETOPS status of the aircraft on the routing.

 

[MetalMover]

The router at the equipment desk is the one who has plenty to explain. If you give me a ETOPS on a 757 from jfk to man. I follow the ETOPS paperwork. Flight follows their paperwork. Off you go. Unless you have a MEL or CDL restriction or a time restriction for some kind of inspection we do not have any documentation to follow that is part of the ETOPS check we sign for. I'm sure changes will be added for us and flight to verify ETOPS status of the aircraft on the routing.

You would think that the computer system would NOT allow a non-etops a/c on an etops route.

 

[Rogallo]

It would not get the ETOPS certification if it wasn't ETOPS  capable. I have never seen that happen and I have been around long before ETOPS existed. I have never seen an ETOPS aircraft downgraded once certified for ETOPS.
But I will admit that there is more to this story than we know. I think a contributing factor is that the A321 going ETOPS is a new program. As a matter of fact I saw my first one recently and saw the designation on the log book. We are not accustomed to having an A321 go ETOPS, especially since we have only been flying the aircraft a relatively short time.

 
Maybe I should have used ETOPS status. Like LMP status.
 
It's obvious the aircraft is ETOPS certified and capable. But what happens to the ETOPS status when the aircraft fails to meet ETOPS requirements?