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

[DallasConehead]

Sounds like everyone screwed this one away, dispatch, mechanics, flight attendants and pilots. All the people that have certs. The logbook should clearly be placarded with the etops designation, as well as the nose gear door.  Sounds like the plane should have an extra raft, I'm not sure on this one, I haven't done a etops check on a 321.
 
Well, with the new management jacking with the log book all the time and the planes coming out of acceptance without all the required markings, I can see how this could happen.
 
The good news is there was no fatality because of it. Bad news, some ones going to get hammered by the feds. We learn our lesson and move on.
 
Have a nice day.

 

[700UW]

http://www.dallasnews.com/business/airline-industry/20150914-american-airlines-accidentally-sends-wrong-plane-on-l.a.-to-hawaii-flight.ece

 

[1AA]

As Bogey (a dispatcher) said on other fleet types there is a code or designator on their computer notifying them if the Aircraft is a ETOPS aircraft. On the airbus fleet no such indication was implemented. An oversight perhaps? I do not recall this happening on the 757, 767 and A300 fleet in the past. The ETOPS paperwork does not have specifics on verifying the existence of a ETOPS stripe painted on the doors. What if the paint wore off? I've seen paint and markings peel off over time. Nor does our paperwork say to make sure the logbook has a ETOPS decal on the logbook cover. Our paper work is a general inspection to check the basics and review the logbook for discrepancies. I previously mentioned this on a earlier post. We follow the paperwork as written aka.. "In Accordance With". The dispatcher from what was mentioned did not have the proper information available to him that other ETOPS aircraft have listed. I'm not sure how the flight attendant's would be at fault if at all. The pilots from my experience check the logbook to make sure the oils and ETOPS check is accounted for as well as any deferred discrepancies. Sounds like the company will probably take the hit. Dispatch will have the info available in line with the other fleet types, maintenance I'm sure will get revised paperwork and flight will have to verify aircraft ETOPS status prior to departure.

 

[DallasConehead]

 The ETOPS paperwork does not have specifics on verifying the existence of a ETOPS stripe painted on the doors. What if the paint wore off? I've seen paint and markings peel off over time. Nor does our paperwork say to make sure the logbook has a ETOPS decal on the logbook cover. Our paper work is a general inspection to check the basics and review the logbook for discrepancies. I previously mentioned this on a earlier post. We follow the paperwork as written aka.. "In Accordance With".

Agreed, however, I do know the reoccurring ETOPS CBT mentions the logbook placard and the nose gear door placard, this is required info to get the certification. I'm thinking the maintenance guys will take a minor hit along with the pilots, as the company and the feds look for the scapegoats.

 

[1AA]

When the feds and the company conduct their investigation on similar issues involving paperwork and company policy they always state, did you follow the paperwork? If it's not on the paperwork that we sign for then we can not be at fault. It may be on cbt training but that is not what we sign for. Similar to pulling up mcm cards with reference printed on it. Same exact paperwork but with reference written across it, it is not valid for sign off. Training videos do not get updated as often as paperwork does. It's for reference only. They always state use proper company manuals ie.. MM, GPM and so on. I agree the company will try to go after maintenance but unless I missed something it's not on our paperwork to verify ETOPS status unless a MEL restricts the flight or dual servicing is performed.

 

[eolesen]

You're claiming a 777 has more landing options LAX SYD than LAX HNL? Last I checked they both head in the same direction.

Technically, yes, there are more landing options between LAX-SYD than there are LAX-HNL, but they're mostly west of HNL.

Bears, beat the drum over fuel exhaustion or a double engine failure if you will, but the only example of this in the past 30 years of ETOPS that I'm aware of was the Air Transat A330 that was a result of allowing an engine swap with a mismatched engine. As bad as AA's maintenance program might be managed, I don't see *that* happening.

 

[Overspeed]

While this was a bad situation and long term a system needs to be put in place that matches the aircraft configuration to the type of route flown. The fact that it went through so many people and the current system did not prevent a non-ETOPS aircraft from flying the route shows there is a major systemic problem.
 
I think my greater concern is the economic viability of putting the A321 in the Hawaiian markets of LIH and OGG by AA. The aircraft will be weight restricted on the return flight by as many as 22 seats that can't be sold. It will be like flying a 737-800 instead. Why the push for the 321 in this market by AA? The 321 doesn't really replace the 757 even though it has the seats. The plane is underpowered for short runways at max range. Boeing and Airbus need to come up with a legitimate replacement for the 757.

 

[Overspeed]

Technically, yes, there are more landing options between LAX-SYD than there are LAX-HNL, but they're mostly west of HNL.

Bears, beat the drum over fuel exhaustion or a double engine failure if you will, but the only example of this in the past 30 years of ETOPS that I'm aware of was the Air Transat A330 that was a result of allowing an engine swap with a mismatched engine. As bad as AA's maintenance program might be managed, I don't see *that* happening.

 
ETOPS operations have proven to be very reliable. A few years back the monitoring of systems reliablity of ETOPS type aircraft had proven to be a big factor in overall aircraft and engine dependability that all 121 aircraft now follow the ETOPS procedures. The high level of scrutiny imposed on twin engine aircraft in the early years has improved overall aviation safety. I believe engineering amd reliability montoring improved because of the need for much higher levels of systems dependability required for ETOPS.
 
That AirTransat incident was extremely unusual. I read that it was a misconfigured engine bracket that cause a hydrualic line to chafe on a fuel line. The luck of having a pilot who was a glider/sailplane pilot as well was unbelievable.

 

[1AA]

I had a conversation with a Airbus captain. He said AA screwed this up bad and the finger pointing has begun. During the ETOPS certification process one question asked by the FAA was how can you prevent a non ETOPS aircraft to fly a ETOPS route? The company response was it can never happen. I can agree with this answer at the time since it had never happened before. But it did, so now the investigation begins. It was also mentioned that the ferry flight back was not done properly. This I can not confirm or have exact knowledge but here is what I was told. The ferry flight back was filed under Part 91 instead of Part 121. I assume that part 121 is what it should have been since AA is a part 121 carrier. Is this a critical issue? I don't really know. I figure a ferry flight back to the mainland with no pax should not be a issue. AA immediately upgraded it's software to prevent this from happening again. Glad to hear that. I wonder if the FAA is considering pulling the ETOPS from the Airbus fleet until AA can prove we can maintain and operate the aircraft under ETOPS category?

 

[700UW]

They won't pull it, you have to have more than one occurrence and more serious mechanical failures.

 

[1AA]

They won't pull it, you have to have more than one occurrence and more serious mechanical failures.

Says you? I know a bit more about the A321 etops certification process that was done at AA when we applied for it. It was certified with stricter guidelines. I am not going to discuss what I know on a open forum. Sorry, but on this one your outside the loop. There is an internal investigation between the company and the FAA. Not all employees know what's going on and for good reason. When the time comes the company and FAA will release their findings and what AA did to prevent this oversight from happening again.

 

[700UW]

Back in the day US had some engine issues on the 767s, and we didn't lose the certification and had several IFSD.

 

[jimntx]

The ferry flight back was filed under Part 91 instead of Part 121. I assume that part 121 is what it should have been since AA is a part 121 carrier. Is this a critical issue? I don't really know. I figure a ferry flight back to the mainland with no pax should not be a issue. AA immediately upgraded it's software to prevent this from happening again. Glad to hear that. I wonder if the FAA is considering pulling the ETOPS from the Airbus fleet until AA can prove we can maintain and operate the aircraft under ETOPS category?

If one uses logic (a dangerous proposition when dealing with airlines and/or the government), no flight should ever be filed under Part 91 because according the results of my Google search, Part 91 is just general FARs that apply probably to all flights in the U.S.  of all kinds.  Part 121 as you say applies to us because we are a passenger carrier whether or not the flight had any passengers on it.  Like you, don't know whether or not we have really blotted our copybook now.
 
And now for the famous last words..."Hey, they can't ground us.  We're American Airlines.  We're too big for them to ground."  

 

[jimntx]

I think we can all agree that there is more than enough Mea Culpa to go around to just about every involved department and staff.  A pilot told me that the pilots should have refused the plane immediately upon boarding.  There's supposed to be a banner (he said yellow) attached to the outside of the logbook with the letters ETOPS  printed across it to indicate certified for ETOPS flight.  (That being said, the pilot was a S80 pilot who does not fly ETOPS routes. Have no idea whether it is true or not.  Pilots please enlighten.) 
 
And, since no one even had their nail polish chipped as a result of this error, let's all be thankful and work hard to make sure it doesn't happen again.

 

[Overspeed]

I think we can all agree that there is more than enough Mea Culpa to go around to just about every involved department and staff.  A pilot told me that the pilots should have refused the plane immediately upon boarding.  There's supposed to be a banner (he said yellow) attached to the outside of the logbook with the letters ETOPS  printed across it to indicate certified for ETOPS flight.  (That being said, the pilot was a S80 pilot who does not fly ETOPS routes. Have no idea whether it is true or not.  Pilots please enlighten.) 
 
And, since no one even had their nail polish chipped as a result of this error, let's all be thankful and work hard to make sure it doesn't happen again.

 
Actually there was a few "whoops" moments by pilot, AMT, dispatch, and FA that would have stopped this from happening.