ETPs

[TransMach]

I don't have Spooky's experience, but I disagree with your opinion.
An ETP shows your nearest (in time) runway. Any inflight emergency could cause a divert to it, not just a low fuel state.

Appreciate your opinion ... yes, properly planned your ETP considering (single engine, depress, or true) is the shortest time to an available runway at that point in time under the given circumstance. My point is that it is not always the best diversion alternate when you consider the exact circumstance our your issue.

By example, you are on your way from L.A. to Maui and just as you pass your "true" ETP (all engines, no pressurization issues, all nav functions operative and you're tankering fuel) when one of your passengers who is under the care of a Stanford University doctor develops chest pain ... if you have the fuel, go to San Francisco! In our operation, in a medical emergency we go where The Mayo Clinic tells us to go, fuel, approach availability, airport performance and as good sense dictates.

Don't you think it might be better to fly a little further to a better airport, better weather, better medical facilities, better mechanical facilities .. better anyting that is material to your circumstance than simply diverting to your planned "ETP"?

Aside from not puting your ETP position in the flight plan (really, really bad idea) that is all I was advertising. Your ETP sets are advisory, your circumstance (and your result) may vary depending on your actions.

TransMach

 

[oldxfr8dog]

Appreciate your opinion ... yes, properly planned your ETP considering (single engine, depress, or true) is the shortest time to an available runway at that point in time under the given circumstance. My point is that it is not always the best diversion alternate when you consider the exact circumstance our your issue.

By example, you are on your way from L.A. to Maui and just as you pass your "true" ETP (all engines, no pressurization issues, all nav functions operative and you're tankering fuel) when one of your passengers who is under the care of a Stanford University doctor develops chest pain ... if you have the fuel, go to San Francisco! In our operation, in a medical emergency we go where The Mayo Clinic tells us to go, fuel, approach availability, airport performance and as good sense dictates.

Don't you think it might be better to fly a little further to a better airport, better weather, better medical facilities, better mechanical facilities .. better anyting that is material to your circumstance than simply diverting to your planned "ETP"?

Aside from not puting your ETP position in the flight plan (really, really bad idea) that is all I was advertising. Your ETP sets are advisory, your circumstance (and your result) may vary depending on your actions.

TransMach

Agreed, depending on the problem, there might be better places to go.
Thanks for the clarification, that makes perfect sense.
I think we all agree about not having the ETP as a nav fix.
Not picking nits, but I have to add, after nine years as a field and helo paramedic, chest pain needs the soonest treatment. Every minute, more heart muscle is dying. I know that was just an example, not arguing
Thanks for the reply.

 

[Waldom]

To address the questions in the original post:

My company's S.O.P.s require an E.T.P. to be shown on the flight plan and plotting chart. If receiving a re-route, a new E.T.P. must be computed and plotted. Per our F.O.M., the E.T.P.s are not to be entered in the FMSs.

If there is another diversion point in addition to those on the continents we are flying between, I request that the flight plan show E.T.P.s between all of them. When drawn on the plotting chart and compared to present position, they provide an instant graphical reference to the nearest runway. As an example, on a flight across the North Atlantic, there might be three sets of E.T.P.s. On a more northerly route, that would be CYQX-EINN, CYQX-BIKF, and BIKF-EINN. This is a matter of personal technique and not a company-mandated procedure....and hardly an original idea.

 

[blueskies8]

We simply plot them on a chart and are aware of our position relative to an ETP. Simple.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[Spooky 2]

Agreed, depending on the problem, there might be better places to go.
Thanks for the clarification, that makes perfect sense.
I think we all agree about not having the ETP as a nav fix.
Not picking nits, but I have to add, after nine years as a field and helo paramedic, chest pain needs the soonest treatment. Every minute, more heart muscle is dying. I know that was just an example, not arguing
Thanks for the reply.

Okay I'll take this to the next level. First of all we are talking about 1 engine out ETP's (1EO) on two engine aircraft in these discussions as three or four engine aircraft have a completely different set of parameters to observe. Also two engine ETOPS operations have a slew of additional requirements that Part 91 or even Part 135 ops do not observe. Most flight planning organizations working the corporate side of the house will provide not on engine out ETPs, but medical ETPs as well that assume all engines are running as well as PNR Points of no return when operating into some remote airfields that do not support traditional ETP calculations. (mostly remote islands in the Pacific).

In the case of two engine aircraft the regulatory compliance does require you to divert to the nearest suitable airport in time without exception, no matter how much gas you have onboard. Hopefully we are all in agreement with this concept as it sounds as if maybe a few do not accept this fact.

ETP's for three engine aircraft assume you have lost two engines. The L1011-1 (orginal lead sled) could get into a situation where when reaching the ETP between say PHNL and KLAX it would not have enough fuel with two engines inop to reach either KSFO/KOAK or PHOG/PHTO, thus the crew was legally bound to return to it's point of orgin. This did not happen often, but it did happen, mostly during contract negotiations for some reason. Also the subsequent drift down after losing two engines might require you to dump fuel so as to stay out of the water. This requirement was factored in the the required fuel remaining at the 2EO ETP Lat/Long.

As we all saw awhile back BA (747-400) lost an engine on takeoff and continued all the way back to Europe. Didn't break any rules at that time and although they did divert for low fuel prior to reaching London.

None the less it was bascially an acceptable practice
condoned by BA. There was a lot of chest pounding and sound bites but I don't anything came of it.

 

[wtrav8r]

A common technique in the 121 carrier world is to "float" your ETP's and diversion airports after the active flight plan.

To do this you just create a discontinuity after the last fix on the legs page and enter the divert airport, ETP, divert airport...etc.

They will then appear on the MAP display as non-active waypoints as you fly by them.

Can you refresh my memory on how to add a Discontinuty on the Legs Page? I used to do the same thing in the 76 for TW, however, that was 5 years ago and I forgot. I am now operating Collins Proline 21 equipment & trying to fiqure the keystrokes. Thanks

 

[Spooky 2]

Can you refresh my memory on how to add a Discontinuty on the Legs Page? I used to do the same thing in the 76 for TW, however, that was 5 years ago and I forgot. I am now operating Collins Proline 21 equipment & trying to fiqure the keystrokes. Thanks

Let me see if I can walk through this. I'm doing 777 stuff these days but I think it's the same on the PIP or Pegasus and you can probably make it work on others as well.

First of all go the the very end of the flight plan. That would be the very last point in the missed approach if you have loaded the approach at the start. Then insert a bogus way waypoint like KSFO for example, Next insert the Lat/Long of your ETP(s) after the bogus waypoint.
Then...delete the bogus waypoint and you should have a discontinuity which you leave in place. After doing this your Lat/Long should "float" in their respective positions over the top of the magenta line. If they are off course at all, take a hard look at your basic flight plan loading to see if the ETP Lat/Long's are incorrect, or maybe you are 1 degree off in the original flight plan loading. When you put the bogus waypoint in the original flight plan and it's not close to the actaul flight plan, you can expect an Insufficient Fuel" message on a Boeing Honeywell FMS.

There is another way to load ETPs on route two but I prefer the above method over messing with route two as it eliminates the Route Copy functionality that

 

[AIRMOTIVE]

I tried to enter a discontinuity the way you described and I was unsucccesful. When I deleted the bogus waypoint it just closed the gap... no discontinuity. The White Honeywell FMS book was not usefull or instructive on how to create a discontinuity. I am at a loss. Its a Honeywell FMS SWv5.2 on a GIV.

 

[Freight Dog]

In B-737NG, we define ETP using Lat/Long, and then put it in FIX page. This way, it shows along your route of flight merely as an advisory.

 

[AIRMOTIVE]

To my knowledge the Honeywell box we are using does not have a fix page. We can enter fixes lots of ways though...cross points, lat/longs, points abeam. These get line selected and then inputed on the flight plan page. Even if I put a fix after the destination airport or navaid flyover fix it will not show up on the waypoint list or plan view of the ND.