A mate of mine just sent me this, no link to original article or source:
US FAA to end ETOPS range restrictions for qualified aircraft
By John Croft
Beginning 15 February, the US FAA will allow properly equipped and approved twin-engine airliners to fly oceanic and polar routes that are indefinitely out of range of emergency airports along the way.
The new rule is intended to boost dispatch reliability for carriers when alternate airports along a route are not available for landing due to inclement weather conditions, said FAA air carrier operations branch manager Robert Reich yesterday at a press conference.
A typical extended operations (ETOPS) approval for carriers flying twin-engine aircraft today is 180min, though United Air Lines has one approval for 207min.
With the limit opened up, however, carriers will boost the chances of being able to fly the most efficient routes as the number of alternative airports will be greater. “The rule has mechanisms for twins to go any length and any duration from an alternate airport, subject to the capabilities of the aircraft,” says Reich.
FAA officials say the increased flexibility will become increasingly important as flights over both poles increase from 1,600 a day to 3,200 a day by 2010.
To obtain approvals, an aircraft will need fire suppression systems sized for the requested time-to-alternate duration and adequate emergency oxygen supplies for the crew and the passengers. The aircraft will also have to carry automated external defibrillators.
Otherwise, the same weather reporting, training and diversion accommodation requirements as currently required will apply.
Prior to the new rules, developed by a FAA/industry advisory committee starting in 2000, any operations greater than 60min from a landing site required approval, says FAA associate administrator for aviation safety Nicholas Sabatini.
The rules were originally developed for piston powered aircraft, but where kept in place when more reliable turbine engines came of age. “The industry wanted to go beyond” the 60min rule, says Sabatini, “but we authorized each applicant by deviation to the rule,” he says.
FAA administrator Marion Blakey says the new rule will also boost aviation safety as it requires tri- and quad-engine aircraft – those for which there are currently no ETOPS rules – to meet the same standards as the twin-engine planes for flights over the poles or farther than 180min from an alternate airport.
Carriers flying three- and four-engine aircraft will have a grace period before the rules kick in: one year to get their program started; six years to install appropriately sized fire detection and suppression systems, and eight years to obtain certification for the modified aircraft, says Sabatini.
Looks like the only true argument for 4 engines has just been erased. (Namely that can fly where twins can’t). Nail in the coffin for the A340 then?
By: Dantheman77 - 16th January 2007 at 05:11
The MD11 was a dog (in terms of range and performance guarentee’s), because there was a lack of investment.
1. The designers wanted a new super-critical wing design, but unfortunatly the board in there wisdom, decided that they didnt want to spend the millions of $$$$ on research and testing, so told the designers to “improve” the old wing (from the DC10). Now there is only so much you can do with an old design (just ask Airbus and there original A330/A350 hybrid) and basically the project was hamstrung (if thats the correct saying) befor it got off the ground.
By: EGNM - 16th January 2007 at 00:10
Cool, now we’re talking about proper aircraft – 748s – yea!
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1033179/L/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0157123/L/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1012844/L/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0932767/L/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0304211/L/
Ahh, the memories…
By: Moggy C - 15th January 2007 at 17:33
Just an observation.
It really isn’t necessary to post the entirety of a question you are answering in your own post, particularly when it is the post immediately above.
It is just laziness.
Moggy
Moderator
By: Bmused55 - 15th January 2007 at 17:17
OK, but I think that they have long range tanks, and even if not they’re certainly configured very low density, which helps with range (there’s Eurofly too, for that matter, operating an all business class A319 across the pond). I still think Air Canada will be the first to operate “normally” configured A320-family aircraft trans-Atlantic.
Andy
You may be right, a little birdy tells me we could be seeing them in GLA.
By: Skymonster - 15th January 2007 at 16:28
what about the Privatair A319’s – they are of the A320 family and operate non stop scheduled trans pond sectors.
OK, but I think that they have long range tanks, and even if not they’re certainly configured very low density, which helps with range (there’s Eurofly too, for that matter, operating an all business class A319 across the pond). I still think Air Canada will be the first to operate “normally” configured A320-family aircraft trans-Atlantic.
Andy
By: frankvw - 15th January 2007 at 14:30
I don’t know if any of you have stock options in either Airbus or Boeing, but you better stop the trolling RIGHT NOW, and get back to the discussed topic. Thank you.
By: Bmused55 - 15th January 2007 at 14:24
Skymonster,
what about the Privatair A319’s – they are of the A320 family and operate non stop scheduled trans pond sectors.
Those aren’t exactly “run of the mill” A319s. Low pax load and I believe extra fuel tanks.
Much like the BBJ
By: Bmused55 - 15th January 2007 at 14:21
jetBlue wanted a bit more out of the A320 not for trans-Atlantic ops, but to allow them to guarantee non-stop US domestic coast-to-coast ops even with the strongest headwinds – currently, there is a risk on a few rare occasions that they have to tech-stop westbound on their coast-to-coast services.
IIRC Air Canada is planning trans-Atlantic ops with the A319 this summer – St. Johns to Heathrow. These will be the only schedled non-stop trans-Atlantic A320-family operations.
As usual, anything Airbus does is panned by a certain person! :rolleyes:
A few observations…
1. Revised larger winglets aren’t the only thing different about the A320E
2. There were two winglet designs, one by Airbus and one by a US company. Neither have delivered the improvements needed to justify their installation. Maybe its very difficult to improve on something that’s absolutely first rate (i.e. the original A320 wing) anyway? 😉
3. Winglets aren’t always a dead-cert – the APB winglets on 737NG don’t work for some types of operation
4. I don’t see the winglet program for the A320 as a failure – it was some research that didn’t yield sufficient results for the program to go ahead
5. Even if it you class it as a design failure, Airbus isn’t isn’t the only manufacturer to such suffer problems. For example… How much did your beloved Boeing spend on the Sonic Cruiser before they realised it was a great big mistake – was that a Boeing failure? It certainly would seem so using your criteria. Was not the MD-11 a performance dog out-of-the-box which was only improved with an in-service upgrade to the aerodynamics?Andy
The A320 E will not be as “Enhanced” as advertised, plain simple fact. 3% of the total fuel savings was to come from the winglets, the winglet trials failed. Isn’t that what trials are all about? seeing if something will work or not and or perfecting what works.
Theres nothing remotely Anti-Airbus in those comments what so ever, just fact based comments.
Why do you feel the need to post Anti-Boeing flame bait?
By: paulc - 15th January 2007 at 13:28
Skymonster,
what about the Privatair A319’s – they are of the A320 family and operate non stop scheduled trans pond sectors.
By: Skymonster - 15th January 2007 at 13:20
Not that I’m aware of. AFAIK the A320 doesn’t have the range for it…
jetBlue wanted a bit more out of the A320 not for trans-Atlantic ops, but to allow them to guarantee non-stop US domestic coast-to-coast ops even with the strongest headwinds – currently, there is a risk on a few rare occasions that they have to tech-stop westbound on their coast-to-coast services.
IIRC Air Canada is planning trans-Atlantic ops with the A319 this summer – St. Johns to Heathrow. These will be the only schedled non-stop trans-Atlantic A320-family operations.
they were talking about this A320 “enhanced” which `Loudmouth`- Leahy was promising to be the best thing since sliced bread. But has now, as per usual, been shown up with the failure of the winglet program from which the A320 “E” was supposed derive its extra range from.
As usual, anything Airbus does is panned by a certain person! :rolleyes:
A few observations…
1. Revised larger winglets aren’t the only thing different about the A320E
2. There were two winglet designs, one by Airbus and one by a US company. Neither have delivered the improvements needed to justify their installation. Maybe its very difficult to improve on something that’s absolutely first rate (i.e. the original A320 wing) anyway? 😉
3. Winglets aren’t always a dead-cert – the APB winglets on 737NG don’t work for some types of operation
4. I don’t see the winglet program for the A320 as a failure – it was some research that didn’t yield sufficient results for the program to go ahead
5. Even if it you class it as a design failure, Airbus isn’t isn’t the only manufacturer to such suffer problems. For example… How much did your beloved Boeing spend on the Sonic Cruiser before they realised it was a great big mistake – was that a Boeing failure? It certainly would seem so using your criteria. Was not the MD-11 a performance dog out-of-the-box which was only improved with an in-service upgrade to the aerodynamics?
Andy
By: bring_it_on - 15th January 2007 at 11:36
IIRC the winglet idea was abandoned after it was found out that the weight of the winglets clearly negated any benefits of strapping them on !!
By: Bmused55 - 15th January 2007 at 09:49
I had forgotten about the Winglet program between JetBlue and Airbus. Any news on which it was deemed a failure?
I’m not too sure, I was going by what a mate told me. Will research, though, like the A380 fiasco, I’m guessing Airbus are keeping the lid on it.
By: andrewm - 15th January 2007 at 09:21
failure of the winglet program
I had forgotten about the Winglet program between JetBlue and Airbus. Any news on which it was deemed a failure?
By: KabirT - 15th January 2007 at 06:32
Not that I’m aware of. AFAIK the A320 doesn’t have the range for it anyhow, less they were talking about this A320 “enhanced” which `Loudmouth`- Leahy was promising to be the best thing since sliced bread. But has now, as per usual, been shown up with the failure of the winglet program from which the A320 “E” was supposed derive its extra range from.
I am not too sure but i definately heard JetBlue trying to go that way. Ah well.:rolleyes:
By: Bmused55 - 14th January 2007 at 21:20
Didnt JetBlue start a service across the pond on A320s? Or planned to do so using A320s?
Not that I’m aware of. AFAIK the A320 doesn’t have the range for it anyhow, less they were talking about this A320 “enhanced” which `Loudmouth`- Leahy was promising to be the best thing since sliced bread. But has now, as per usual, been shown up with the failure of the winglet program from which the A320 “E” was supposed derive its extra range from.
By: KabirT - 14th January 2007 at 06:38
Say what now?
Didnt JetBlue start a service across the pond on A320s? Or planned to do so using A320s?
By: Bmused55 - 13th January 2007 at 23:18
I believe this is one of the inadequecies (sp?) that was addressed in the new rule. Now, all ETOPS airplanes (airplanes more than 60 minutes from a suitable airport regardless of the number of engines) will have to have increased fire suppression capabilities. Many holes were “closed up” like that, the rules are now more standard, and as a result there is some increased cost for some of the 3 and 4 engine operators. But, I would argue safety has been increased by this rule by closing up those gaps.
I was only illustrating how a fact can be used to show a certain point of view that isn’t strictly correct.
By: Ship 741 - 13th January 2007 at 23:13
If you want to argue safety, well: ETOPS qualified twins have a longer fire surpression capability. Meaning, they have better supression than Quads, as part of ETOPS requirements. So, I’d say Twins are safer, on that aspect.
….
I believe this is one of the inadequecies (sp?) that was addressed in the new rule. Now, all ETOPS airplanes (airplanes more than 60 minutes from a suitable airport regardless of the number of engines) will have to have increased fire suppression capabilities. Many holes were “closed up” like that, the rules are now more standard, and as a result there is some increased cost for some of the 3 and 4 engine operators. But, I would argue safety has been increased by this rule by closing up those gaps.
By: Bmused55 - 13th January 2007 at 19:38
http://www.crazyaviation.com/movies/swiss330.mpeg :rolleyes:
Which is safer? 2 engine or 4 engine?
Notice how it flew on safely (presumably burnt or dumped fuel and returned to sender) and didn’t plummet to the ground like many would have you believe a twin would.
If you want to argue safety, well: ETOPS qualified twins have a longer fire surpression capability. Meaning, they have better supression than Quads, as part of ETOPS requirements. So, I’d say Twins are safer, on that aspect.
Its easy to twist things to suit your argument. My statement above is true, regarding the fire surpression. But by no means does that make a twin Safer than a Quad.
Posting a video of a flame out does not provide conclusive proof of anything more than flame bait.
NEXT…..
By: KKM57P - 13th January 2007 at 13:47
http://www.crazyaviation.com/movies/swiss330.mpeg :rolleyes:
Which is safer? 2 engine or 4 engine?
Sign In
January 9, 2007 at 5:28 pm