Never thought about this aspect

[F9DXER]

Seems Iqaluit has fuel in their city water (CYFB)

Would you list as ETOPS alternate and would you still go?



Don’t drink from tap, Canadian city says, as gasoline suspected in water supply

 

[4EngineETOPS]

Seems Iqaluit has fuel in their city water (CYFB)

Would you list as ETOPS alternate and would you still go?



Don’t drink from tap, Canadian city says, as gasoline suspected in water supply

It sounds like they have a plan to provide water to their residents. This isn't in the NOTAMs, so I almost definitely wouldn't know about it while selecting an ETOPS alternate. Even if I did, I'd still use Iqualit if weather and NOTAMs looked good. It's still a viable diversion airport. If there was an impact to airport operations or ARFF, there'd be a NOTAM.

 

[who'swho]

Seems Iqaluit has fuel in their city water (CYFB)

Would you list as ETOPS alternate and would you still go?



Don’t drink from tap, Canadian city says, as gasoline suspected in water supply

Ask yourself, would you pass over it if you had an engine fire. I wouldn't. NOTAMs legal, I'm using it.

 

[Jaketheman]

Seems Iqaluit has fuel in their city water (CYFB)

Would you list as ETOPS alternate and would you still go?



Don’t drink from tap, Canadian city says, as gasoline suspected in water supply

So you think that makes the airport not suitable?
When the FAA says “nearest suitable”, obviously tap water is on top of the list. Local roads and traffic is second.

 

[PHL_Approach]

Seems Iqaluit has fuel in their city water (CYFB)

Would you list as ETOPS alternate and would you still go?



Don’t drink from tap, Canadian city says, as gasoline suspected in water supply

I typically ask myself when judging if I want to list something. Would SWR111 have landed there?

 

[Mainline_or_bust]

So you think that makes the airport not suitable?
When the FAA says “nearest suitable”, obviously tap water is on top of the list. Local roads and traffic is second.

The only thing I could think of is if OP is saying what if there’s too much fuel in the ARFF trucks to help put out a fire but instead accelerate any fire? Without looking it up do they even have water or is it chemical fire suppression?

 

[F9DXER]

It was more of - would you opt to use it, knowing that the pax will be stuck there a minimum of 6 hours with the chance of no water available?

 

[Kev]

Iqaluit's not suitable. The ARFF doesn't mention that the "fire retardant" is actually seal blubber.

 

[Jaketheman]

It was more of - would you opt to use it, knowing that the pax will be stuck there a minimum of 6 hours with the chance of no water available?

Even if you don’t list it as ETOPS, if you need it and that’s your nearest suitable you better not go somewhere else with that excuse.

 

[Jaketheman]

The only thing I could think of is if OP is saying what if there’s too much fuel in the ARFF trucks to help put out a fire but instead accelerate any fire? Without looking it up do they even have water or is it chemical fire suppression?

I think it has to be chemicals, at those high temperatures of engine fire the water would just spread the fire.

 

[Mainline_or_bust]

I think it has to be chemicals, at those high temperatures of engine fire the water would just spread the fire.

FAR 139.317 mentions water quite a lot. I’d probably take the easy out and not list the airport but possibly use it in the incredibly unlikely event of a diversion.

 

[dispatchguy]

I'm not required to read yahoo news before dispatching - unless its in a NOTAM, an AIP, AIC, or an AIP SUP, I dont care.