Cannot Fly 5 Hours With Manual Throttle?

[MikeOH]

3 hours ago, GeeBee said:

The company's opspecs are governing however, they cannot be more permissive than the FAA template. IOW, if an inspector issues ops specs more permissive than the template, "Lucy you got some splaining to do!"

Is that a FACT you can cite?  Or, just your opinion on how it works?  The term 'template', by itself, does NOT imply a restriction.

3 hours ago, GeeBee said:

Obviously if you think about it, if airline A got a better deal than airline B that would be a competitive advantage and the howls would be heard all the way to 800 Independence Ave.

Logically, if you think about it, ANY difference between airline A and airline B OPSPECs is pretty much a defacto 'better deal' somehow, otherwise what would be the point of ANY deviation from the FAA's 'template'.  Yet, it would appear there are not 'howls all the way to 800 Independence Avenue'. 

[GeeBee]

39 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

Is that a FACT you can cite?  Or, just your opinion on how it works?  The term 'template', by itself, does NOT imply a restriction.

Logically, if you think about it, ANY difference between airline A and airline B OPSPECs is pretty much a defacto 'better deal' somehow, otherwise what would be the point of ANY deviation from the FAA's 'template'.  Yet, it would appear there are not 'howls all the way to 800 Independence Avenue'. 

I think you mis-understand how it works. The FAA Master Ops specs is like the car in the commercials. It has every bell and whistle you can hang on it. The airline decides what operations it wants to do just as you decide if you want 4 wheel drive on that new truck. If you select a given operation the FAA sets out the maintenance, training, dispatch and manual requirement for that option. Otherwise, the operation is not in the Ops specs.

For instance for years, SWA did not perform CAT II and CAT III operations. This despite the fact that their airplanes were capable of such operation., the airports they flew into had CAT II and CAT III approaches. They were not in their ops specs because SWA decided not to choose that option to be placed in their ops specs. If they had chosen, they would have to do all the same things as other operators. That all said, the requirements to perform CAT II and CAT III operations were no different than any other airline because the language is directly from the Master Ops specs template. IOW, they give the same 4 wheel drive to everybody who asks for it.

[MikeOH]

@GeeBee

Why would, to use your example, SWA choose NOT to have CATII and CATIII options available if their equipment is capable?  IOW, just because it's in your OPSPECS nothing says you MUST use it.

[GeeBee]

59 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

@GeeBee

Why would, to use your example, SWA choose NOT to have CATII and CATIII options available if their equipment is capable?  IOW, just because it's in your OPSPECS nothing says you MUST use it.

Because it is not just the operation. If you have CAT II and CAT III in your ops specs it cascades to a whole other set of ops specs. For instance monthly autopilots checks that have to be accomplished during maintenance routines. Monthly avionics calibration checks, the airplane has to accomplish a real auto land every 30 days which means you have to track that and get your crews to do it, or you have to remove the airplane from CAT II/CAT III status until you accomplish an extended autopilot check. You have to expand your training footprint and create the simulator time on each PC to demonstrate the approaches for each and every pilot. It is not just having CAT II and CATIII capability and "use it when you need it" like having an ILS receiver in your airplane. It is a whole eco system from maintenance to training to dispatch and it is costly. An airline has to decide if the cost is worth it. SWA ultimately added it for competitive reasons. Hard to explain why every one is landing and you can't.