LAN - Remote South Polar flights (on Twins) + diversion points

747megatop · Mon Feb 19, 2018 11:43 pm

I searched a.net and could not find anything on this. I happened to be on flightradar24.com and started tracking this remote lonely flight - https://www.flightradar24.com/LAN805/107accca LAN 805; literally all by itself and far far away from any habitable land mass with a runway for emergency situations. I was just wondering what would be the diversion points on this route; escpecially considering that LAN 805 is being operated on a twin (787 in this case). Not that twin vs quad matters in this case if the pilot needs to put the plane on the ground soon. I am guessing that flights over the pacific have the same problem but at least on the pacific side there seem to be more options than the southern ocean route. Any thoughts?

jfk777 · Mon Feb 19, 2018 11:56 pm

Easter Island is west of Chile about 2,500 miles which LAN serves as a domestic flights as well.

777PHX · Mon Feb 19, 2018 11:58 pm

According to GCM, it would require 330 min ETOPS at certain points. That's interesting. It's a very long flight over the middle of nowhere with no one around you.

evanb · Tue Feb 20, 2018 12:00 am

Flying with ETOP/ETDO 330, meaning 330 minutes from diversion field. That provides considerable scope to divert back to New Zealand or Chile.

ibthebigd · Tue Feb 20, 2018 12:11 am

US to Hawaii is similar I think?

Adispatcher · Tue Feb 20, 2018 12:31 am

ibthebigd wrote:
US to Hawaii is similar I think?

That can be done ETOPS 180 with PHNL and KSFO.

dcajet · Tue Feb 20, 2018 4:23 am

evanb wrote:
Flying with ETOP/ETDO 330, meaning 330 minutes from diversion field. That provides considerable scope to divert back to New Zealand or Chile.

Both LA and NZ are approved for ETOPS/ETDO 330 for the AKL-SCL (787) and AKL-EZE flights.(77E and 787).

B777LRF · Tue Feb 20, 2018 9:04 am

The reason they can't do a more direct routing, and have to avail themselves of ETOPS330 regulations, is the fact a commercial twin in normal passenger operations is not allowed to venture south of 50S.

BravoOne · Tue Feb 20, 2018 11:24 am

The South Polar Area of Operation with three and four-engine airplanes will require both a Polar
Operational Approval and an ETOPS Operational Approval. This is visually demonstrated in the routes between all three southern continents penetrate the 180-Minute ETOPS Threshold Boundary. And for the most part, the optimum westbound routing for these
city pairs will require an even more southerly routing to avoid the strong easterly jetstreams.
This is only possible if the operator has an ETOPS Operational approval.

Please share your source for the 50 south restriction you cite as a fact??

mmo · Tue Feb 20, 2018 12:37 pm

BravoOne wrote:

Please share your source for the 50 south restriction you cite as a fact??

It is actually 60S. I am not sure but IIRC, try FAR121.161. It is in the Polar Operations, not ETOPS. There was a good read in Boeing's Aero magazine a few years ago.

BravoOne · Tue Feb 20, 2018 1:56 pm

Maybe I'm slower than usual this am but I don't see where that addresses 50 or 60 South, polar ops. My reference is the Boeing ETOPS Operational Guidelines and Methods and it covers this region quite well up to 330' Lets wait and see what source 777LRF is using.

mmo · Tue Feb 20, 2018 3:41 pm

BravoOne wrote:
Maybe I'm slower than usual this am but I don't see where that addresses 50 or 60 South, polar ops. My reference is the Boeing ETOPS Operational Guidelines and Methods and it covers this region quite well up to 330' Lets wait and see what source 777LRF is using.

Should be AC-120.42B

BravoOne · Tue Feb 20, 2018 4:24 pm

I'm real familiar with -42B and here are no such restrictions as such in -42B. I also have the DRAFT for -42C and again this restrict does not appear there either. Not saying it does not exist, but since the poster 777LR was so positive about this restriction I remain curious as to his source?

mmo · Tue Feb 20, 2018 6:51 pm

Sorry, I thought you were talking about the 50S vs. actual 60S definition. Agree, there is no wording like was quoted.

Zeke2517 · Tue Feb 20, 2018 8:35 pm

Here's what it looks like to me:

"(a) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, unless approved by the Administrator in accordance with Appendix P of this part and authorized in the certificate holder's operations specifications, no certificate holder may operate a turbine-engine-powered airplane over a route that contains a point -

(3) Within the South Polar area (Which is defined in 14 CFR 121.7 as "the entire area South of 60° S latitude").

https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c ... .6&idno=14

So it's not 50S, and if you're approved by "The Administrator" you can fly in the South Polar Area. Right?

BravoOne · Tue Feb 20, 2018 9:24 pm

If you are "approved" I see no reason why you cannot operate in this region. It might take 330' ETOPS which is a quantum leap fro 180' but technically if you meet all of the conditions, you should be good to go. I don't know where 777LR got this idea from?

longhauler · Tue Feb 20, 2018 11:09 pm

BravoOne wrote:
It might take 330' ETOPS which is a quantum leap fro 180' but technically if you meet all of the conditions, you should be good to go.

330 minutes is astounding!

Other than fire suppression capabilities, what else is done to meet the conditions?

747megatop · Tue Feb 20, 2018 11:10 pm

Some very interesting South Polar routings over/near Antarctica -

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=JNB-AKL,PE ... U=mi&E=330

Looks like a hypothetical non stop from PER to SCL/EZE/GRU would take the flight over Antarctica directly. Any restrictions on allowing these flights if some airline want to introduce one of these city pairs?

dcajet · Wed Feb 21, 2018 12:33 am

747megatop wrote:
Some very interesting South Polar routings over/near Antarctica -

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=JNB-AKL,PE ... U=mi&E=330

Looks like a hypothetical non stop from PER to SCL/EZE/GRU would take the flight over Antarctica directly. Any restrictions on allowing these flights if some airline want to introduce one of these city pairs?

Norwegian Argentina (DN) has the authority for EZE-PER-EZE. I really question the commercial appeal of such a route - and the logistics of such a flight, if allowed. Heard that one of the ideas was to fly to PER via JNB, from EZE. They also hold EZE-JNB authority and if they can get South Africa-Australia rights, they could benefit from the huge S. African expat community in Perth.

GalaxyFlyer · Wed Feb 21, 2018 12:54 am

Where are the divert airports on Antarctica? If the grey area represents ETOPS 330; they’ll need a divert that can safely shelter those on board.

GF

77west · Wed Feb 21, 2018 5:41 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Where are the divert airports on Antarctica? If the grey area represents ETOPS 330; they’ll need a divert that can safely shelter those on board.

GF

There aren't any. Those are just some examples of extreme routes. The only ones that may work would be the ones from SYD and MEL. All of the others would not be feasible. (AKL-JNB may work with a routing further west)

BravoOne · Wed Feb 21, 2018 12:55 pm

I think LAN may have used 330' for some flights due to Russian space junk re-entering over some oceanic airspace that falls within their route structure. This authority is granted on a flight by flight basis and not simply a blanket authorization, at least in the case of the FAA. Time limits on fire suppression are the most restrictive issue, so if the time limit is 3:45 minus 15, you will get the 330 ETOPS limitation.

Still waiting for 777LR to resurface and tell where he found that restriction in his post??

BravoOne · Wed Feb 21, 2018 1:20 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Where are the divert airports on Antarctica? If the grey area represents ETOPS 330; they’ll need a divert that can safely shelter those on board.

GF

I do not have, nor have the time to run a flight plan right now but I see a previous example that goes from LIME to TBPB and uses TFFF and LPLA for ETP alternates. I'll have to do some more research as I have no experience with anything beyond 180. I have been down to Christ Church several times and been onboard the USAF C130 they keep down there to service some S. Pole facilities, but that and $4 will only get you a cup of Starbucks coffee. and nothing more.

There are a number of "must haves" before you can dispatch beyond 240 minutes and I'll try to dig up a list..

GalaxyFlyer · Wed Feb 21, 2018 1:39 pm

I’ve run plans and no questions on most routes, but trans-Antarctic routes are going to challenging for diversions. There are requirements for them to shelter the people, provision for rescue, etc beyond just 330 of ETOPS time.

PER-EZE or PER-USH won’t work, beyond 330 for considerable distance and nothing for alternates enroute.

BravoOne · Wed Feb 21, 2018 3:57 pm

How can you run an ETOPS flight plan without having access to the Boeing ETOPS data base?? 777 & 787??

zeke · Wed Feb 21, 2018 4:02 pm

Easy, use a real flight planning system. A lot of very good ones available that are better than Boeings.

BravoOne · Wed Feb 21, 2018 4:25 pm

zeke wrote:
Easy, use a real flight planning system. A lot of very good ones available that are better than Boeings.

Zeke once again you demonstrate your lack of knowledge. Simply amazing. You would not know a Boeing ETOPS flight plan if it hit you square in the face. I'm done with this thread other than waiting for 777LR reply regarding over flight below 60S.

zeke · Wed Feb 21, 2018 4:29 pm

Oh really, so you have actually gone out to tender for a new flight planning system recently ?

Do you actually know what is available on the market ?

I think you are the one kidding yourself by having to resort to a personal attack to score a point, the last thing I am accused of s “lack of knowledge”.

7673mech · Wed Feb 21, 2018 7:02 pm

zeke wrote:
Oh really, so you have actually gone out to tender for a new flight planning system recently ?

Do you actually know what is available on the market ?

I think you are the one kidding yourself by having to resort to a personal attack to score a point, the last thing I am accused of s “lack of knowledge”.

Zeke, don't even tell this clown the time of day.
He kept trying to tell SWA pilots what was on their aircraft a couple weeks ago (SATCOM) and was clueless.

747megatop · Wed Feb 21, 2018 7:14 pm

jfk777 wrote:
Easter Island is west of Chile about 2,500 miles which LAN serves as a domestic flights as well.

IPC as a diversion point for SCL-MEL doesn't make sense; IPC seems far away from the flight path

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=scl-mel;scl-ipc

GalaxyFlyer · Wed Feb 21, 2018 9:43 pm

Well, it’s 6,800nm, PER-EZE. The midpoint is 3,400nm without an airport anywhere close. The GCM default ETOPS TAS is 410 knots or 2255nm for ETOPS 330. Yes, various proprietary planning engines might extend the 2255 nm a bit, but they won’t make up over 1,000 nm. I’ve used ARINC and Lockheed-Jeppesen Jet Plan for business jets doing ETOPS, not perfect comparison, but the basics are similar.

GF

zeke · Thu Feb 22, 2018 12:50 am

You could get to S87 on the A350 using USH, CHC, PER (ETDO 370), only around 30 nm more than the great circle.

GalaxyFlyer · Thu Feb 22, 2018 1:14 am

Where or what is S87?

GF

zeke · Thu Feb 22, 2018 6:33 am

The latitude of 87 degrees south.

BravoOne · Thu Feb 22, 2018 4:45 pm

B777LRF wrote:
The reason they can't do a more direct routing, and have to avail themselves of ETOPS330 regulations, is the fact a commercial twin in normal passenger operations is not allowed to venture south of 50S.

Still waiting for someone to verify this claim?? Maybe 777LRF just meant to say you need 330 for the cross polar ops in the southern hemisphere?

BravoOne · Thu Feb 22, 2018 4:47 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Well, it’s 6,800nm, PER-EZE. The midpoint is 3,400nm without an airport anywhere close. The GCM default ETOPS TAS is 410 knots or 2255nm for ETOPS 330. Yes, various proprietary planning engines might extend the 2255 nm a bit, but they won’t make up over 1,000 nm. I’ve used ARINC and Lockheed-Jeppesen Jet Plan for business jets doing ETOPS, not perfect comparison, but the basics are similar.

GF

Is the Galaxy certified for ETOPS on delivery?

GalaxyFlyer · Thu Feb 22, 2018 6:16 pm

The “galaxy” in question is Lockheed’s version-C-5. I used those planning engines at my last employer. Bizjets, under 135, are basically ETOPS 180; 240 is possible but very difficult. Lots of buyers were required to operate under 180 rules, either by choice or authority. So, I had lots of questions.

GF

BravoOne · Thu Feb 22, 2018 6:48 pm

Okay sorry for C5 mixup. Should of known better. As you have indicated I think, the ETOPS issue would only apply to 180+ in Part 135 ops and no application in Part 91. What I was thinking about was the Global Express certified out of the box so to speak, for ETOPS?

GalaxyFlyer · Thu Feb 22, 2018 9:40 pm

ETOPS 180; there’s a advisory wire for Ops and Mx to work off of. It’s getting beyond 180 for 135 that drives an OpsSpec and maintenance plan. There really aren’t that many heavily used routes that need more than 180 minutes for business users. It’s mostly an issue of awareness and planning to avoid the few routes where it’s an issue. The tough ones are South Pacific to US, esp NZ and trans-Polar. The G650ER has some challenges, I’d bet.

GF

BravoOne · Fri Feb 23, 2018 2:16 pm

B777LRF wrote:
The reason they can't do a more direct routing, and have to avail themselves of ETOPS330 regulations, is the fact a commercial twin in normal passenger operations is not allowed to venture south of 50S.

I think its safe to say that is not correct as while the poster has been active on o ther threads he/sh has not stepped forward with any evidence of this being factual.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net