Oops: American Accidentally Flies Wrong Plane To Hawaii

I liked this explanation of things. Clearly written; made sense; easily understood. I learned more about ETOPS, and a number of wheresfor and whys; no whining; no sensationalism. Thanks a bunch. I noticed one minor scratch, not even an ouch: I mention this only as the writer is indeed very good, and I'll leave it to the writer to decide--but I was taught to say DIFFERENT FROM, keeping all those Fs together; as opposed to DIFFERENT TH--. I dunno. See what you think. Thanks for the nice article. At the very least, now I won't be confused if I hear someone was sacked for flying ETOPSicated. '

I'll never forget as a gate agent in Portland, Ore. meeting the inbound flight from Minneapolis/St.Paul enroute to Honolulu. As the 757-300 rolled into the gate, from the jetbridge, I was in shock NOT to see the ETOPS placard on the nose wheel landing doors. I called dispatch immediately and subsequently an ETOPS qualified 757-300 was ferried in from Seattle to continue its journey from PDX to HNL.

I believe everyone from scheduler down to the mechanic would be investigated by the FAA. Scheduling has to choose an available aircraft that is ETOPS certified. It goes to the gate, maintenance has to check it for airworthiness. On a trip to Hawaii there should have been an ETOPS inspection. If that was left out on the check list the maintenance would be not have looked.. The pilot does his walk-around and knows his or her route. On the nose landing gear door is the letters ETOPS. If that is missing then the plane should not go. Having the wrong aircraft delivered to the gate is not something that happens, so the pilot was more considered about the condition of the aircraft. In the cockpit are the words ETOPS where the pilot and FO can see it. Bottom line the FAA can may give fines to the Pilot and Mechanic but I garuentee the company will get fined and there will be some extra training for everyone.

@candace warner, you really have to make sure that you have read carefully and fully understand the posts to which you are replying before you begin to correct what you perceive to be errors, and certainly before you all but call someone a liar: Look again, and you will see that @Jonathan E was not trying to gin up a lawsuit but was speaking of liability issues that *would've* come into play IF there had been an accident: "Aside from liability for any loss of life *had* the [p]lane gone down . . . AA’s damages *would’ve* enhanced for such gross and unforgivable negligence" (my emphasis). Furthermore, @pavel did not "denegrate" (I assume you meant "denigrate"?) the AA FA by claiming there "was no safety demonstration"; those are your words. Pavel wrote that they did "neglected to play the safety video," did not "verbally confirm" the responsibilities of those passengers sitting in the emergency exit rows, and failed to "do a seatbelt/tray table/etc check before takeoff and landing." As an attorney, you must surely appreciate the important differences between what was actually written and what you reported was written. For the sake of your clients (in either of those two states), you might heed the advice you gave Jonathan in the last two sentences of your post; you are so right: self-importance does *not* look good; oddly enough, it also frequently seems to invite error. BTW, I'll be amazed if you reply to me, absolutely floored if any such reply goes beyond commenting on some grammatical and/or spelling error I've let slide by, and thrilled to apologize if you prove me wrong.

Maybe one of those great folks in AA Press and Public Relations, who for sure have seen this blog, would like to comment ...........