ETOPS - Ask Captain Lim
ETOPS #
Article Title
Author
1
Will there be an airport to land on when flying over the seas in case of an engine failure?
Capt Lim
2
Flying over the Ocean
Capt Lim
3
Which non-ETOPS route was the pilot planning to take us back Capt Lim to Casablanca?
4
Could you explain what "wet footprint" is all about?
5 6 7
Capt Lim
Would you continue to the destination when one engine has Capt Lim failed? Could the Boeing 777 limp on a single engine if one has failed Capt Lim whilst crossing the Atlantic? Questions about airspeeds, ETOPS and flying the MSFS 2002
Can you explain why the ETOPS of a Boeing 777 is limited to 3 hours? Safest Airlines, ETOPS and Boeing 777 vs Airbus 330/340 9 issues. Whether proposals of ETOPS applicability to 3-or-4 engines 10 affect the Boeing 777? What is ETOPS with regards to the Boeing 777 and Airbus 340 11 debates? 8
12 ETOPS Will there be an airport to land on when flying over the seas in case of an engine failure?
Will there be an airport to land on when flying over the seas in case of an engine failure? Flying - ETOPS Written by Capt Lim Friday, 03 January 2014 04:22
New ETOPS rule extends 777's performance Dear Capt Lim You said that aircraft like the Boeing 777 is designed to fly in case of engine failure for about 1:30 hours, maybe more. This is to allow the pilot to divert and land safely at the nearest airport.
Capt Lim Capt Lim Capt Lim Capt Lim Capt Lim Capt Lim
But is there always an airport when this happens? For example, on my flight to Cuba, will there be an airport close by in order for the plane to land in case of an engine failure? Is this aircraft designed to land safely on the sea without risking the life of the passengers? Thanks again for this website. It is really helpful. I feel that flying is a lot safer now than what I used to believe. I flew many times before but now I’ll do it with more confidence. Waiting for your answer. Raidel Hi Raidel, Let me refresh you a little on some technicalities about flying over the ocean or water. This process is known as ETOPS (extended twin engine operations). Different airlines and planes have different ETOPS certification. Regulations certify some twin engine planes to fly 1:30 hours from an alternate airport in case of engine failure, others as long as 2 or 3 hours. In fact the latest Boeing 777 is certified to fly for 5:30 hours from an alternate airport after an engine failure! (see video above) Imagine, if you were flying in an established airline to Cuba with the latest Boeing 777 with 5:30 ETOPS certification, you would have many airports within about 2500 miles away along the route. So if the plane you fly to Cuba is ETOPS certified, there would be an emergency airport for you anytime. A Boeing 777 is designed to be able to ditch into the water provided it is a controlled one – see my detailed explanation about this in Landing on Waterhere PS. If you like what you read, more stories are found in my book LIFE IN THE SKIES (Preview here) and you can purchase a copy here. To check for any latest updates or postings, you can follow my Twitter at @CaptKHLim Southwest Airlines Launches New Boeing 737-800 ETOPS
Flying over the Ocean
Flying over the Ocean Flying - ETOPS Written by Capt Lim Monday, 28 January 2013 03:09
Air Berlin A330 pushing back at Berlin Airport Hi Captain, I'm so confused over this issue of transatlantic flights. I was told jet airliners must stay within 170 miles of land when flying from the USA to Europe but then I was told that the jets that have more than 2 engines can fly over the ocean without being close to land. However, I flew from Berlin to Miami on Air Berlin and this jet only had 2 engines on the wings! However the pilot took a course way over the Atlantic crossing Bermuda instead of hugging the Iceland/Greenland and Newfoundland coasts. Can you explain why they approved this route almost directly over the Atlantic over 1000 miles from land? I was monitoring the route throughout the flight and was quite apprehensive about this route with a 2 engine airliner. Can you give me the skinny on this airline rule of transatlantic flights? Thank You. Sam Lombardi Hi Sam, Perhaps you have not been given the correct information about flying a twin-engine plane over the ocean. I have recently written an article in the Air Asia in-flight magazine precisely explaining the rules of ETOPS (Extended Twin Engine Operations) for those who are having a vague knowledge on this topic. Please read this article titled Coast Huggers and Curved Routes. Hope you enjoy reading it and many other air travel articles in Pilots Perspective here
PS. To check for any latest updates or postings, you can follow my new Twitter at @CaptKHLim
Air Berlin A330 taking off from Miami
Which non-ETOPS route was the pilot planning to take us back to Casablanca?
Which non-ETOPS route was the pilot planning to take us back to Casablanca? Flying - ETOPS Written by Capt Lim Sunday, 26 December 2010 09:31
Hi Capt Lim, Before starting, I just wanted to thank you for a great site and your help in answering all our questions. I was recently on a Royal Air Maroc flight from NY JFK to CMV (Casablanca Airport in Morocco). The flight is usually 6h30min long but due to ”defective radar", the pilot told us, before we departed, that we would have to take an alternate route which would take 10h30min to get us to Casablanca! One of the flight attendants told me that the plane will have to fly "non-ETOPS". Which route was the pilot planning to take? Is that advisable? Thanks for all your help! OD P.S. Note that the radar started functioning again 45 minutes into our flight and the pilot said we would be able to follow our initial route. Rest of the flight was, as it usually is, calm and uneventful and we got to CMV within less than 6h30min. During the first 45 minutes of the flight, the plane was cruising at 20,000 ft (vs. the usual 34,000 ft). Hi OD,
ETOPS (Extended-range Twin-engine Operational Performance Standards) rules permit twin-engine commercial planes to fly routes that are farther than a distance of 60 minutes' flying time from an emergency or diversion airport. What it means is that if an engine failed in a twin-engine airliner, it must be able to fly to a diversion airport on the single remaining engine and land within 60 minutes. This rule effectively allows twin-engine planes to fly longdistance routes that were previously off-limits to them. So when you were told that the plane has to fly a “non-ETOPS” route, it could then no longer fly across the Atlantic Ocean in a straight line because all the diversion airports are more than 60 minutes away. Therefore, I assume the captain would have to fly a circular route that hugs closely to the coastline – initially a North Easterly track towards Greenland, then Easterly to Iceland and finally South Easterly towards England and across Spain to Casablanca, hence 10 hours 30 minutes long. When the pilot resume the ETOPS flight (normally, a defective radar would prevent the plane from flying at night except at daytime and in very good weather condition), it became legal for him to take the shortest route, i.e. 6 hours 30 minutes. The initial low cruising level could be due to conflicting air traffic along the route. A Royal Air Maroc Boeing 767
Could you explain what "wet footprint" is all about?
Could you explain what "wet footprint" is all about? Flying - ETOPS Written by Capt Lim Tuesday, 14 October 2008 04:11
Hi Capt Lim, I am an ex-Air Force pilot where I flew transport planes from small turboprops to the Airbus A310. Now I am flying as a corporate pilot, and while surfing on aeronautic matters in the web, I found that term ‘wet footprint'. It seems to be "when flying over water, the maximum distance one could glide, should engine[s] fail, and still end up landing in the water" - so
confusing isn't it?. Could you please give me some more information about it - how to compute it, etc? Thanks Manuel Alcaide Hi Manuel, Remember my answer on ETOPS (‘Engine Turns or Passengers Swims') here? Well ‘wet footprint' is another term to mean that some commercial aircraft are not allowed to operate along this portion of the route unless it has the ETOPS coverage. If you have some knowledge on ETOPS (read more here), you are most unlikely to be confused by this explanation ‘when flying over water, the maximum distance one could glide, should engine[s] fail, and still end up landing in the water'. Anyway, the explanation is only partially correct - ‘not maximum distance one could glide' but rather ‘maximum distance flown on one engine'. Yes, you would end up landing in the water because you were not supposed to fly past the PNR or ‘point of no return' from a suitable diversion airport. PNR is sometimes known as the ETP or ‘equal time point'. Let's say if you are flying across the water from London to Keflavik in Iceland, you are required to calculate the ETP. This calculation serves as a planning strategy so that if you have an emergency before the ETP you can turn back to your chosen alternate airport at, for instance, Glasgow in Scotland. If the emergency occurs past the ETP, then you must continue on to Keflavik. If you insist on turning back now, you may get ‘wet', meaning, you end up in the water! Most trans-oceanic flights today would require an ETOPS of at least 120 minutes for any 2-engines commercial aircraft. (Boeing 777 has ETOPS of more than 180 minutes) This means that at any point in the flight, a suitable airport able to handle the particular aircraft must be available on one engine within 2 hours. How do one calculate the ETP? The answer is basically as follows:ETP = (DxGSret)/(GSret + GSfwd) Where: D = Total distance for the flight GSret =Ground speed from the ETP back to the origin (GS return) GSfwd = Ground speed from the ETP to the destination (GS moving forward at the ETP before you turn around to return)
Today, most computer generated flight plans (CFP) would calculate all these details for you. On the Airbus A320 and above, the Flight Management Computer works that out for you in the air as well.
Would you continue to the destination when one engine has failed?
Would you continue to the destination when one engine has failed? Flying - ETOPS Written by Capt Lim Wednesday, 12 December 2007 22:29
Dear Captain Lim, Firstly, I do sincerely appreciate your dedication, effort and time to create such an informative and excellent website for us. I can really feel your passion about flying and I know you do enjoy your job in the sky. After I read your FAQ about engine failure on the Boeing 777, I have one more question. Let's say, if you decide to proceed with the take-off after one engine has failed before the aircraft reached V1 on a short haul flight of about 2 hours, I would like to know, whether you would fly to your destination as scheduled or would you join the circuit and land in the departure aerodrome? I am looking forward to your reply. If it is possible, could you also share some more technical and operation stuff with us? Thank you. Regards, Ben Lam Hi Ben, I think there is a slight misconception on the issue of V1 - the decision speed. Let me refresh. V1 is the take off decision speed whereby if the take off is continued after an engine failure (above this speed) it will be possible to continue the takeoff safely. It is also the speed whereby, if the Captain abandoned the take off, it will also be possible to bring the aircraft to a safe stop within the remaining Runway. This means that an airplane must be ABOVE the V1 speed before he can
safely continue with the take off if an engine fails. If the airplane has NOT reached the V1 speed, he MUST ABORT the take off for it is no longer safe to do so. So in your scenario, the Captain would abort the take off. However, if the engine fails ABOVE V1, the Captain would continue the take off, carry out the emergency drills and attempt to re-start the engine. If it is not possible to regain the failed engine, he would return for a single engine landing and would NOT proceed to the destination. On the other hand, if the engine fails past the half way point, the Captain would only continue to fly on one engine to the destination or any diversion airports if he chooses to do so. Sorry, general operational and technical issues are too wide to cover in this site!
Could the Boeing 777 limp on a single engine if one has failed whilst crossing the Atlantic?
Could the Boeing 777 limp on a single engine if one has failed whilst crossing the Atlantic? Flying - ETOPS Written by Capt Lim Wednesday, 12 December 2007 22:19
Dear Capt Lim I have a question pertaining to the Boeing 777. I am preparing for a flight from DFW to Frankfurt, Germany and was wondering about engine failure on the Boeing 777. On your website, you state that the plane is designed to fly three hours on one engine (provided you attained sufficient altitude and speed beforehand). But what about a long flight like my upcoming one over ocean? Could the Boeing 777 limp into an airport if one of the engines failed crossing the Atlantic? Sincerely, Wayne Simmons Hi Wayne, Your flight from DFW to Frankfurt will satisfy the ETOPS requirements otherwise it would not be permitted to operate the route over the Atlantic Ocean. Depending on which Airline you are flying with, a 180 minutes ETOPS covers a lot of routes over the oceans. I fly over the Atlantic quite regularly and one of the possible diversions I used to rely on in the Atlantic is Larges Airport in the Azores. It is only less than 120 minutes from my usual route across to Europe.
If it makes you feel any better, just last month, a United Airlines Boeing 777 from Auckland to San Francisco shut down one of its engines due to a mechanical problem and flew for 192 minutes on single engine to land safely at Kona Airport in the Hawaiian Islands. It exceeded the 180 minutes ETOPS limits by 12 minutes because of strong headwind. According to Boeing, this is a record for a passenger plane limping on one engine!
Questions about airspeeds, ETOPS and flying the MSFS 2002
Questions about airspeeds, ETOPS and flying the MSFS 2002 Flying - ETOPS Written by Capt Lim Tuesday, 11 December 2007 20:45
Hi Captain Lim, With reference to the question on the CAS and Mach, I am not again satisfied with it. I referred to some documents and I found the answer. The reason is that for a target CAS the TAS increases as you fly higher. If the target CAS is 300 knots at MSL, then the TAs is also 300 knots. As you fly higher the TAS would increase for same CAS. Also, as you fly higher the Mach would decrease. So for a target CAS of 300 knots, you would be flying super sonic if you fly at extreme high altitudes. So for a given target, CAS equivalent and Mach equivalent of TAS at a given altitude is same. This is called as crossover altitude. Up to this, they fly at CAS and after that they fly at Mach number. This happens to be 31000 ft in your case. I have further questions for you:1) Is the ETOPS Rules applicable to BRGA aircrafts? I see a lot of aircrafts like the Learjet, Canadair, etc which can fly non stop from London to NewYork. They are also twin jets. Do they also have to abide by the ETOPS Rules? 2) Do you have an ETOPS Chart, plotted for a particular route with the diversion time arcs from designated enroute alternates? I heard that every
ETOPS pilot needs to carry that for better monitoring. Could you give that and explain? 3) B777 is cleared for 180 Minutes ETOPS. So it can fly safely in single engine for 3 hours and land. Is this tested practically - for example, failing an engine and analyze whether it runs for 3 hours or more in air? 4) Have you ever flown a Boeing 777 in Single Engine? Please share your experiences? 5) I am trying to make a perfect landing using MSFS 2002. I perfectly capture the localizer and Glide Slope and maintain perfect speed. But just before landing, at, say 7-10 seconds before touch down, I see that the GS either move up or down. I think this happens when I flare the aircraft. I am never able to touch on markings nor keep GS at dead center. I have seen that some aircrafts like the B777 and B767 flare a lot and make a smooth touch down on the markings. Even the smoke appears to be very minimal. Do you keep the GS exactly at the Center at the time of touch down? Please explain the key for a nice landing... the LAST 10 seconds! Thanks and Warm regards Srihari J Hi Srihari, Your previous question was, when CAS and Mach number are indicated in flight in the Boeing 777? The answer was when it crosses 31,000 feet. You have already researched the technical answers yourself regarding the speed relationship. 1. I believe all twin engine jets have to abide by ETOPs rules. 2. Yes, there are ETOPS and Enroute Alternate charts in all the Boeing 777's. Please read the details yourself as they are too lengthy for me to explain. 3. Of course, the180 minutes on single engine are tested by the engine manufacturers during the development stages otherwise it would not be certified by the relevant authorities to be used in passenger airplanes. 4. I have not flown on the Boeing 777 on single engine except in the simulator. 5. Flying a MSFS 2002 Simulator and the real airplane is not the same! I have mentioned in many FAQs that these MSFS simulator are good procedural trainers but the feel is totally different. You never manually fly a Boeing 777 ON THE INSTRUMENTS until touchdown! It would be too dangerous! As a general rule, most pilots fly on the ILS up to 200 feet above ground level on a Category 1 ILS and then fly visual below this height with the GS as a reference, but NEVER up to touch down, unless he is doing an Autoland. In an autoland, the landing is executed by the computer. For non-autoland, he
must look out and land the airplane physically (without the help of the autopilot) below 200 feet. In the case of the MSFS, you got no choice but to fly the airplane to touchdown because there is no visual guidance outside. I have not flown a MSFS 2002 simulator and I cannot give you any guidance on how to fly it. Hi Captain Lim, Regarding 2nd question, I can read it but I do not have any chart. If you could send or upload one of the charts which u have used, that would be great. Regarding the 4th question, I was pointing to MSFS but it was with reference to Boeing 777 only. As you have said, you fly manually after 200 ft above ground level (agl). I have seen many videos where they make the full final approach manually, say from the point they capture LOC and GS. You have LOC and GS so you can fly manually up to the decision height. After 200 agl, how do you manage to land at the dead center of the runway touchdown markings? What is the secret to LAND exactly on the markings, even though you cannot see it? Please let me know. Thanks and warm regards, Srihari J Hi Srihari, Sorry, I am unable to provide you the ETOPS charts. It is true the ILS can be flown manually from the time the GS and LOC is captured on instrument. If an airfield is approved for a Category 1 ILS, you can legally fly to 200 feet agl only. Thereafter, you must look out and fly visually, NO MORE INSTRUMENT FLYING. If you can't see the Runway, you must go around! You CANNOT fly the GS and LOC on instrument until touch down as you would do in a MSFS simulator in your PC. I hope you understand this. If you are doing an Auto land approach, then it is a different story. The Autopilot, with the help the computers, could fly the airplane until touchdown safely, but not human beings in real life!
Can you explain why the ETOPS of a Boeing 777 is limited to 3 hours?
Can you explain why the ETOPS of a Boeing 777 is
limited to 3 hours? Flying - ETOPS Written by Capt Lim Thursday, 06 December 2007 19:24
Hi Capt Lim, A great web site. I absolutely love it! I have a few specific questions about the Boeing 777 performance capabilities:1. At MTOW (maximum take-off weight), what is the single engine climb gradient (feet per nautical miles) at maximum climb thrust at sea level, ISA (International Standard Atmosphere) condition? 2. If a Boeing 777 is tracking the ILS (Instrument Landing System) on an auto land and an engine fails at, say 1000ft, can the computer still compensate for the asymmetric thrust without pilot input and still land itself safely? 3. I am kind of familiar with ETOPS (Engines Turn Or Passengers Swim!), but it doesn't make any sense why the Boeing 777 is limited to 180 minutes. If you cross-feed the fuel to the good engine during an engine failure, it seems like it could fly longer than on two engines, since only one engine is now burning fuel. Therefore it seems like it could fly even longer (fuel quantity divided by the fuel flow of the operating engine). Can you explain why then, it is limited to 3 hours. I would greatly appreciate your answer. Thank you very much for your time. The Boeing 777 is by far my favorite and my ultimate job would be to do just what you do for a living!! Andrew Hi Andrew, 1. I do not have the specific performance charts with me to work out the answer on the single engine climb gradient. So I cannot give you a precise answer at the moment, perhaps later. 2. Engine failure at 1000 feet - no big deal my friend! A Boeing 777 can easily handle this emergency and land safely. Below 1500 feet, the airplane rudder is coupled to the autopilot during an auto landing. When the computer sense an engine failure, the asymmetric force would be handled by the TAC (Thrust Asymmetric Compensator) and so any yawing effect would be very negligible. The pilot would notice the automatic application of power on the live engine and any rudder forces would be automatically trimmed.
3. You are right! Theoretically, the plane can continue to fly on one engine for more than three hours until it runs out of fuel! The three hours limitation is imposed by FAA for certification purposes. It takes into consideration many other safety factors, such as a particular airline maintenance practices, historical engine performances, airplane cargo fire suppression capability, weather conditions and facilities at the alternate airports. All these and other safety measures are looked into before the Authorities came out with a suitable safe time frame for the Boeing 777. This limitation can be extended or reduced by a particular Aviation Authority. For instance, if a particular Airline operating Boeing 777's has poor maintenance records resulting in three engine failures in the ETOPS segment during the last one year, it may have its 180-minutes ETOPS withdrawn or downgraded to a 120-minutes instead. If that happens, it may not be allowed to operate a particular route that has a 180minutes ETOPS segment, such as the Los Angeles-Auckland route.
Safest Airlines, ETOPS and Boeing 777 vs Airbus 330/340 issues.
Safest Airlines, ETOPS and Boeing 777 vs Airbus 330/340 issues. Flying - ETOPS Written by Capt Lim Thursday, 06 December 2007 19:22
Hi Capt Lim, Just would like to say that you have done a wonderful job on the website, it looks great, it has vast amount of data, and it is very professional. It is very hard not to be biased when you compare Boeing and Airbus, ( I am a Boeing fan), but you have done an excellent job. Just a note, when I was reading through the "The safest airlines in the world - Asia region", I have noticed that Qantas is the best not only in Asia-Pacific region, but in the world as well. I am very glad to see that as I am an Australian citizen. I also noticed that Air China is missing from the list. Before the B767 crashed in Korea this year, it has not had any accidents for 46 years! It is a major achievement for China, isn't it? Just a little bit disappointed with the result. (Was born in China) Question: B777 probably is the pinnacle of civil aircraft technologies today. 208 minutes of ETOPS currently in place has resulted in lost sales to A340600(Cathy Pacific, the first user in Asia). Can you see whether this limit will
be changed to 240 minute in the near future? Another question: From the messages I read from the website, I believe that you have been flying both A340 and B777, can you tell me is there any difference between the traditional flight control and Airbus side controller (I forgot the name)? I don't want to start a Boeing Vs Airbus topic like some websites do, but is there any major differences? Thanks, Ling Chen Hi Ling Chen, Thank you for your comments. Regarding the statistics for safest Airlines, the data were extracted from AirDisaster.com for I did not have the time to really make a thorough research as to why Air China was missing from the list. I am not sure as to whether the ETOPS of the Boeing 777 will be extended from 208 minutes to 240 minutes in the near future. I have not flown the Airbus 340 except the Boeing 777. What I mentioned in some of my answers was that I have actually flown as a passenger on the Airbus 330. I do get a lot of feedbacks from my colleagues who fly the airplane. The Boeing 777 uses the conventional flight control whereas the Airbuses 330/340 use the side stick control. Both these types of airplane are adopting the fly-by-wire concept. I have already answered another question on the side stick control in this Site. As you have noted, the Boeing vs Airbus story is mainly commercial and there are bound to biases depending on who you are talking to. Both have their pluses but I am more comfortable flying on the Boeing 777 :-)
Whether proposals of ETOPS applicability to 3-or-4 engines affect the Boeing 777?
Whether proposals of ETOPS applicability to 3-or-4 engines affect the Boeing 777? Flying - ETOPS Written by Capt Lim Thursday, 06 December 2007 19:22
Hi Captain Lim, (1) I heard that ETOPS rules are getting changed... something like twin jets
ought to be considered as 4-engine jets, etc. Has it affected Boeing 777 operations? (2) Regarding the incident on the Airbus 300 that crashed at New York where one of the engines separated from the wing. As far as I know, only engine out is practiced in simulator before V1 and at V2. So how this is taken care of if it happens to a Boeing 777? Is this scenario also practiced in the simulator? Is the "TAC" (Thrust Asymmetric Compensator) designed to take this into consideration? Was this metal fatigue defect not detectable in the walk around pre-flight checks? I used to see pilot walk around the aircraft checking control surfaces, landing gear, etc. I never saw a pilot looking at the joints which connect engine and the wing. Sometimes a wing may also break, not because the wing do not have sufficient strength to hold the stresses but because of loose joints. Thanks and warmest regards, Srihari J
Hi Srihari, (1) The latest update on ETOPS points to changes requiring 4-engines airplanes to adopt 2-engines practices rather than vice versa. Below is a summary extracted from the Boeing Infoline site. On 16.12.02, ARAC, the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee, the advisory committee of FAA, came up with findings and recommendations for ETOPS. It recommends that ETOPS requirements should not only apply to two-engines but to 3-or-4 engines airplanes as well. Their rationale for this was, to raise the aviation industry to a higher and uniform standard. They have recognized the high safety level already achieved by ETOPS during the last 20 years. In the past, the initial assumption was that 2 engines were inherently less safe when compared to 3-or-4 engines airplanes. Today, 125 operators flew a total of about 1,100 ETOPS flights every 24 hours. The philosophy of ETOPS ensures the imposition of strict requirements in airplane engine design, increased maintenance practices and reliable backup systems. Hence, we see the robustness and reliability of engines being developed to achieve these enhanced safety standards. It also requires additional measures to protect airplanes, passengers and crew should a diversion arise. The effect of these requirements means that the entire aviation industry have benefited from this philosophy. Modern jet engines are 50 times more reliable than piston engines that inspired the 60-minutes Rule in 1953. This Rule bars DC-3 from flying extended routes that were better served by 4-engines DC-4. So engine
reliability were no longer the single focus of safety concern and this gradually made the Rule obsolete. In 1985, ETOPS came up with a 120 minutes diversion authority, that is, there should not be more that 5 IFSDs (in-flight shut downs) in every 1,000 engines hours. In 1988, the 180 minute authority requires a new figure of not more than 2 IFSDs per 1000 engine hours. In fact, today, the average IFSD rate is only 1 in 1000. So, engine reliability is no longer a concern. Instead, the Committee argues that other factors are more relevant to overall safety. They are factors such as, cargo fire suppression capability, weather conditions and facilities at the alternate airports. So there should be an uniform standard for all and not just confined to two-engines airplanes. Diversions affect all types of airplanes. They are usually either due to illness of passengers, smoke in flight deck or cabin, turbulences or adverse weather, fuel leak, cargo fire, IFSD or engine failure. The proposed regulations changes by ARAC include more reliable voice communications for all airplanes for extended operations. Airplane dispatched on extended flights should be installed with more reliable communication technology. For diversion requirements, pilots should now consider factors such as airplane condition and system status, weather conditions en route, terrain and facilities at the alternate airports. All airplanes on extended operations shall carry fuel reserve for low altitude diversions following an emergency depressurization. Maintenance standards for current ETOPS operators should be applicable to all airplanes for extended operations. Passengers recovery plans should also consider the well being of passengers and crew at diversion airports. Currently, these rules are only applicable to Polar operations only. Cargo fire suppression facilities and all performance data should be available to all extended operations Polar operations, as recommended to North and South Polar regions should be designated as ETOPS applicability. Rescue and fire fighting requirements at enroute alternate airports should be specified as well. These are some of the proposals. The FAA will evaluate these ARAC-proposed regulations and is expected to enact these new ETOPS rules, perhaps in late 2004. These new rules would certainly enhance the safety and reliability of all extended operations in all airplanes in the future. (2) Engine out are practiced between V1 and V2 and also at other times in flight in the flight simulator. Engine failures or separation from wings are sometimes practiced with the 'TAC' deliberately switched off to make it more difficult for the pilots to handle a crippled airplane. Pilots do external checks that include the physical external structure of the airplane. Metal fatigue are hard to detect on the engine joints because they are hidden behind metal panels. They are only checked by engineers during stipulated maintenance periods
What is ETOPS with regards to the Boeing 777 and Airbus 340 debates?
What is ETOPS with regards to the Boeing 777 and Airbus 340 debates? Flying - ETOPS Written by Capt Lim Thursday, 06 December 2007 19:20
ETOPS or Extended Twin Operations is an acronym created by ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization) to describe the operation of twin-engine aircraft on a route that contains a point further than 60 minutes flying from an adequate airport at the approved one engine inoperative cruising speed. Some people like to refer to ETOPS humorously as ‘Engine Turns Or Passengers Swim!’ In the beginning of commercial aviation, fare-paying passengers were flown on single-engine airplanes. Gradually two or moreengine airplanes were introduced as it provided higher safety in the event that an engine fails on them. Since 1936, FAA (Federal Aviation Authority) had created requirements for all types of aircraft to be within 100 miles of an adequate airport when carrying passengers. Why 100 miles? Because that was the average speed of older airplanes then. The 60-minutes rule was established on all airplanes with one engine inoperative regardless as to the number of engines the airplane have. The purpose was to reduce the risk of all engines failure for it ensured that, should one engine failed at any point along the route, a landing could be made before the remaining engine failed. This was because of the concern on the reliability of piston-powered engine at that time. When jet engines were introduced, it was shown that they were more reliable than piston engine airplanes and hence a new kind of operation was introduced. Hence, in the early 1980’s, ICAO came up with a stipulation that, unless an aircraft can meet special ETOPS criteria, it recommended that all twin turbine powered aircraft be restricted to 60 minutes at single engine speed from an adequate airport. The Boeing 777’s are some of those airplanes that meet the ETOPS performance requirements. These are the airplanes that are specially modified to improve the reliability and redundancy of the performance of the engine, electrical, hydraulics and avionic systems. In 1998, the Boeing 777’s were certified to fly on ETOPS routes for up to 208 minutes.
Approval for ETOPS operation is given by the Civil Aviation Department of the country concerned. The Aviation Department places strong emphasis on the flying operations and engineering practices of the particular Airline. Should there be infringements of the strict ETOPS requirement, the Airline may lose its ETOPS approval to operate on a particular route. For example, on a particular route, say from Tokyo to San Francisco, if X Airline suffered an engine failure during the cruising phase after an hour’s flight out of Tokyo, the ETOPS approval of 208 minutes for that Airline may be withdrawn for future operations. This ETOPS policy is initially a slight disadvantage to the Boeing 777 relative to the Airbus 340 competition. However, it was proposed that this rule be extended to long haul operations of two engine jets to three and four engine airplanes. This policy shift by FAA, if adopted, would force the four-engine Airbus 340 and Boeing 747 to meet the same safety requirement of the twin engine Boeing 777. The Airbus 340 versus Boeing 777 debates have quite often made Airbus to argue that its A340 is more reliable, affordable and safer than the Boeing 777. The ETOPS policy has tacitly supported Airbus’s position even though studies indicated that the Boeing 777 had suffered less engine failures and diversions than the Airbus 340. However, Airbus may need to change its marketing pitches if the FAA adopts the recommendations of the extended range twinoperations working group soon. ETOPS rules mandate strict maintenance requirement, extra reserve fuel and additional cargo-fire-suppression equipment. FAA have noted that three and four-engine jets traveling long distances have been exempt from such additional safety rules since the air carrier jet era began. It was concluded by the working group that it is in the flying public's best interest to extend these rules to all longrange commercial aircraft as well.
