ETOPS

Matthew, I should think the A340 can as it contains largely the same design criteria as the A330 which was designed for ETOPS from the outset. It’s the 747/MD11/DC10/TriStar/etc which I believe is doubtful until the new LROPS come into force.

Interesting. Personally I don’t have a problem with it for aircraft that have been designed for ETOPS from the drawing board such as the A330 and B777 but I wouldn’t fancy it on a B757 or B767.

Yes , but he was speaking about pacific routes

Look, I think an airliner can fly in a clean configuration (half way, so fuel weight is ok) on 8000 feet with the remaining engine nearly full power. That’s great, because there is are airports in airports in iceland, greenland and canada.
Well, more than half of the transatlantic routes is operated by 767’s!

If I might step in on this one,
Airworthiness requirements are for a twin engined aircraft that has suffered an in flight shutdown, should land at the nearest suitable airport. It is the decision of the Commander as to the relative suitability, if more than one airport is available.

The captain would keep the passenger informed at all times of the situation and would tell them that they are diverting.

Just for info, a 3 or 4 engine aircraft can continue with it’s planned route if it suffers an in flight engine shutdown. Only if it loses another (2 engines) it has to comply with the above requirement.

That was about 2 weeks prior to them canceling that route. In that case, wysiwyg, do the flight crew notify the passengers of the engine shutdown, or do they just go about as planned and divert?

Yes i would have thought United have probably got 207 approval as they are prolific Pacific crossers (try saying that after a beer!).

Some operators do have a 207 min etops approval.

I wonder if any passenger even noticed the incident before landing in Hawai?

177 – a bit close to the 180min mark!- cheers steve

RE: ETOPS

Wysiwyg

What is the basis for determining the flying time? Some of these “minutes” look arbitary at first glance.

Also, is the ETOPS rating dynmaic? I mean, can the same aircraft/crew get 180 mins over certain terrain, but only 60 minutes over other terrain? I should imagine you could stray 180 mins from a diversion runway in the civilised world, but less than 180 mins in undeveloped regions as the emergency services are not as efficient?

Does it depend on quality of ATC coverage?

Being an accountant, I would seek to derive a mathematical model for ETOPS times beased on all these factors and probably lots more which I lack the knowledge of.

RE: ETOPS

Remember that maps are flat while the earth is a sphere (well nearly!). The closest route from A to B is called a great circle route. Flights from East to West or vice versa appear curved (towards the closest pole) when drawn on a 2D map, hence why North Atlantic crossings appear to curve past Iceland or Greenland.

ETOPS – It is a bit more complicated than a type having an approval and that’s that. Each individual aircraft must have an approval (which requires a higher level of equipment and maintenance) so you may find that some operators may only keep a proportion of their fleet ETOPS approved to keep costs down. Each individual operator has to apply for their own ETOPS approval, my company is currently 138 minutes but hoping to get that extended to 180. Also, the crew have to be ETOPS trained to operate on behalf of their company.

RE: ETOPS

Makes sense Bhoy – thanks.

RE: ETOPS

>OK then, forgive me naivity, but if most aircraft can have
>ETOPs certification fairly easily, why do most
>trans-atlantic flights follow the North Circle route, why
>don’t they just go straight across?

It’s the shortest route.

Think about it…
It dosen’t look the shortest on a map, but if you get a globe, try using a piece of string to see what’s the shortest route from one point to the next. They go north, because the further north they go, the less the circumference of the planet as they cross the pond. The one main exception to this is concorde, which basically goes straight across, but that’s more to do with the fact that they can’t go supersonic over land, so they need to be over the open ocean.

RE: ETOPS

It is in the books that aircrafts should try to take routes over airports as much as possible. Crossing the pacific also airlines go over Hawaii to reach the US.

RE: ETOPS

OK then, forgive me naivity, but if most aircraft can have ETOPs certification fairly easily, why do most trans-atlantic flights follow the North Circle route, why don’t they just go straight across?

RE: ETOPS

The 777 was actually ETOPS 180 minute certified right off the line, the first not having to ‘earn it,’ so to speak.

GD1

RE: ETOPS

After 350 hours an aircraft is capable of ETOPS. B767 is supposed to be the most succesful in this term.

The 767 as the first jetliner for 180-minute extended twin-engine operation (ETOPS). This allows more direct, time-saving trans-Pacific and trans-Atlantic flights from many U.S. gateways.

RE: ETOPS

An aircraft must have a certain number of flying hours before it can be issued with ETOPS.

RE: ETOPS

If its more fuel efficient to go a more direct route, why don’t more carriers certify more aircraft?

It is cost related?

What are the practicalities of certifying an aircraft with ETOPs?