 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Flight crew raised question as to the legality of their flight that operated more than 50 mi offshore in an overwater operation.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 270585 |
| Time | |
| Date | 199405 |
| Day | Fri |
| Local Time Of Day | 0001 To 0600 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | atc facility : zhu |
| State Reference | TX |
| Altitude | msl bound lower : 39000 msl bound upper : 39000 |
| Environment | |
| Flight Conditions | VMC |
| Light | Dawn |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Controlling Facilities | artcc : zny |
| Operator | common carrier : air carrier |
| Make Model Name | B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
| Navigation In Use | Other Other |
| Flight Phase | climbout : takeoff cruise other ground : preflight |
| Route In Use | enroute : other oceanic enroute airway : zhu enroute other |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Person 1 | |
| Affiliation | company : air carrier |
| Function | flight crew : first officer |
| Qualification | pilot : atp pilot : flight engineer |
| Experience | flight time last 90 days : 90 flight time total : 8800 flight time type : 300 |
| ASRS Report | 270585 |
| Person 2 | |
| Affiliation | company : air carrier |
| Function | flight crew : captain oversight : pic |
| Qualification | pilot : flight engineer pilot : atp |
| Experience | flight time last 90 days : 90 flight time total : 16000 flight time type : 2000 |
| ASRS Report | 270584 |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | aircraft equipment problem : critical non adherence : far non adherence other other anomaly other |
| Independent Detector | other flight crewa other other : unspecified |
| Resolutory Action | none taken : anomaly accepted |
| Consequence | Other |
| Supplementary | |
| Primary Problem | Aircraft |
| Air Traffic Incident | Pilot Deviation other |
Narrative:
My current position is right seat, 757. Fairly new to the aircraft, with past experience 4 engine turbojet. Superficially aware of restrs pertaining to overwater flight with 2 engine aircraft, but obviously not fluent. We were a 'reserve' crew, on an aircraft that has domestic use only. This was a spontaneous flight, added on with no advance warning. It was clearly unfamiliar territory to flight crew and to the dispatcher. The fact that the aircraft may not be legal for overwater dispatch was considered, however, it was dismissed predicated on 121.161 (a), regarding being within 60 mins of a suitable airport. After the flight, there was some discussion among other flcs as to the legality of the flight, quoting 121.161 (B). As of this writing, it appears that the routing was legal (beyond 50 mi limit of shore), but steps are being taken to insure that in the future, the crews and dispatch are made more comfortable with regulations that are rarely used. Supplemental information from acn 270584: aircraft operated beyond 50 mi limit of shoreline, subsequent discussion pertaining to legality of flight. Operated B-727 for another airline for several years over same route with no question of legality. To insure compliance, operated return trip over land, briefed pilot union to initiate more clarification on regulation from company.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: FLC RAISED QUESTION AS TO THE LEGALITY OF THEIR FLT THAT OPERATED MORE THAN 50 MI OFFSHORE IN AN OVERWATER OP.
Narrative: MY CURRENT POS IS R SEAT, 757. FAIRLY NEW TO THE ACFT, WITH PAST EXPERIENCE 4 ENG TURBOJET. SUPERFICIALLY AWARE OF RESTRS PERTAINING TO OVERWATER FLT WITH 2 ENG ACFT, BUT OBVIOUSLY NOT FLUENT. WE WERE A 'RESERVE' CREW, ON AN ACFT THAT HAS DOMESTIC USE ONLY. THIS WAS A SPONTANEOUS FLT, ADDED ON WITH NO ADVANCE WARNING. IT WAS CLRLY UNFAMILIAR TERRITORY TO FLC AND TO THE DISPATCHER. THE FACT THAT THE ACFT MAY NOT BE LEGAL FOR OVERWATER DISPATCH WAS CONSIDERED, HOWEVER, IT WAS DISMISSED PREDICATED ON 121.161 (A), REGARDING BEING WITHIN 60 MINS OF A SUITABLE ARPT. AFTER THE FLT, THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION AMONG OTHER FLCS AS TO THE LEGALITY OF THE FLT, QUOTING 121.161 (B). AS OF THIS WRITING, IT APPEARS THAT THE RTING WAS LEGAL (BEYOND 50 MI LIMIT OF SHORE), BUT STEPS ARE BEING TAKEN TO INSURE THAT IN THE FUTURE, THE CREWS AND DISPATCH ARE MADE MORE COMFORTABLE WITH REGS THAT ARE RARELY USED. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 270584: ACFT OPERATED BEYOND 50 MI LIMIT OF SHORELINE, SUBSEQUENT DISCUSSION PERTAINING TO LEGALITY OF FLT. OPERATED B-727 FOR ANOTHER AIRLINE FOR SEVERAL YEARS OVER SAME RTE WITH NO QUESTION OF LEGALITY. TO INSURE COMPLIANCE, OPERATED RETURN TRIP OVER LAND, BRIEFED PLT UNION TO INITIATE MORE CLARIFICATION ON REG FROM COMPANY.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.