Wirraway
29th Apr 2004, 17:24
Fri "The Australian"
Air safety reforms fly into a stoush
By Geoffrey Thomas
April 30, 2004
TROUBLE is brewing between US and European aviation regulators over the highly contentious issue of how far twin-engine aircraft - such as Boeing's 767s and Airbus's A330s - can operate from an airport.
Last year the US Federal Aviation Authority issued a so-called Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) to establish a unified body of regulations governing long-distance flights which all but eliminates limits on how far twin-engine aircraft can operate.
This would give compliant operators, such as Qantas and Air New Zealand, the freedom to fly twin-engined aircraft over remote and inaccessible routes.
The NPRM will for the first time extend some requirements that previously applied only to twin-engine aircraft to those with more than two engines if they are to operate "more than 180 minutes from an adequate airport".
However, a number of organisations, such as European regulator the Joint Aviation Authority, Airbus Industrie, Singapore Airlines and the British Airline Pilots Association have filed objections.
Top of the complaint list is the requirement that quad-engine jets, such as the Boeing 747 and the Airbus A340, would require expensive refits for no apparent safety benefit. But there are also concerns expressed by the JAA about allowing twin-engine aircraft to fly more than four hours from an airport.
Regulations relating to how far aircraft can fly from an "alternate" airport - not necessarily its stated destination or origin - date back to 1953. In that year the US implemented a regulation prohibiting twin and triple-engine commercial airliners from flying routes that were more than one hour single-engine flying time from an adequate airport.
This was a direct response to the problems relating to reliability of piston engines.
In 1964, the FAA exempted the three-engine 727 and Trident from the regulation and, by the 1970s, the jet age had seen a tenfold increase in engine reliability. In 1983, discussions began to ease the rule for such twin-engine designs as the A300, 767 and 757.
The FAA introduced the two-hour rule in 1985 subject to meeting performance parameters over 12 consecutive months of operations. Aircraft also had to be fitted with additional back-up systems. This was dubbed Extended Twin Operations or ETOPS, which some renamed Engines Turning Or Passengers Swimming.
ETOPS was extended to three hours from an airport in 1988 as turbofan engines were demonstrating reliability 50 times that of piston engines. But airlines still had to demonstrate 12 consecutive months of two-hour ETOPS experience first.
In 1995, accelerated ETOPS was endorsed based on proven ETOPS processes reducing the need for prior airframe-engine service experience.
In 2000 the FAA approved a 15 per cent extension of the three-hour rule, but only for the Boeing 777 across the northern Pacific and on a case-by-case basis.
The 207-minute exemption, as it is called, was critical to the 777 for northern Pacific operations to cross a slice of airspace up to 160km wide over the Bering Sea that is more than three hours from a diversion airport when all six alternative airports in Alaska and northern Russia are unavailable owing to poor weather.
This happens about twice a year on average.
The effort resulted in some strongly worded exchanges between Boeing and Continental Airlines, which advocated the exemption, and Airbus which opposed it.
The FAA acknowledges that engine reliability is no longer the primary culprit in diversions.
In fact, according to Boeing, just 3 per cent of 777 ETOPS diversions are related to engine problems, while Airbus reports a similar experience for operators of A330s.
This radical change represents the culmination of almost 15 years of real-world experience with extended twin operations. Yet its implications extend beyond the realm of safety and engineering and into the commercial arena, where Boeing is pitting its ultra-long-range twins like the 777 and the 7E7 against Airbus's A340-500/600 quad-jets.
The NPRM process was done in co-ordination with a similar European initiative under the auspices of the JAA, but the JAA and Airbus want twins and quads separated, with differing rules.
Mahan Pandey, director of operational regulatory affairs at Boeing, which participated in both the Aviation Rule Making Advisory Committee meetings that led to the FAA NPRM and in the FAA/JAA meetings, concedes that there was not always total consensus on all points. "Our hope is we will be able to have a harmonised approach on both sides of the Atlantic."
However, the JAA has said that unless there are changes in the FAA's NPRM, its similar document would be radically different. This would result in a chaotic position for airlines.
The major areas affected by the potential impasse are the north and south Pacific, with most countries adopting the US position. Late last year Boeing demonstrated the latest model of its 777-300ER and flew it from Perth to Noumea on one engine. The aircraft also flew non-stop from Sydney to Recife, Brazil, a journey of 18 hours and 25 minutes.
During the test program the 777-300ER also landed in the wilds of Siberia at airports such as Yakutsk, Novosibirsk, and Petropavlosk, demonstrating its capability of landing on remote icy airfields.
The accessibility of these airports and the opening of new polar air routes over Russia make a big difference to airline economics.
The difference in performance between the worst conventional route and the best polar route is an airline accountant's dream - 11.34 tonnes in extra payload for the 777.
Qantas and Air New Zealand are observing the stand-off with more than passing interest.
Both airlines were at the forefront of ETOPS development with the 767s aircraft and have amassed considerable experience with them. Qantas and Air New Zealand operate 767s to a host of south and north Pacific destinations, while Qantas is about to introduce A330s on these routes.
==========================================
Air safety reforms fly into a stoush
By Geoffrey Thomas
April 30, 2004
TROUBLE is brewing between US and European aviation regulators over the highly contentious issue of how far twin-engine aircraft - such as Boeing's 767s and Airbus's A330s - can operate from an airport.
Last year the US Federal Aviation Authority issued a so-called Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) to establish a unified body of regulations governing long-distance flights which all but eliminates limits on how far twin-engine aircraft can operate.
This would give compliant operators, such as Qantas and Air New Zealand, the freedom to fly twin-engined aircraft over remote and inaccessible routes.
The NPRM will for the first time extend some requirements that previously applied only to twin-engine aircraft to those with more than two engines if they are to operate "more than 180 minutes from an adequate airport".
However, a number of organisations, such as European regulator the Joint Aviation Authority, Airbus Industrie, Singapore Airlines and the British Airline Pilots Association have filed objections.
Top of the complaint list is the requirement that quad-engine jets, such as the Boeing 747 and the Airbus A340, would require expensive refits for no apparent safety benefit. But there are also concerns expressed by the JAA about allowing twin-engine aircraft to fly more than four hours from an airport.
Regulations relating to how far aircraft can fly from an "alternate" airport - not necessarily its stated destination or origin - date back to 1953. In that year the US implemented a regulation prohibiting twin and triple-engine commercial airliners from flying routes that were more than one hour single-engine flying time from an adequate airport.
This was a direct response to the problems relating to reliability of piston engines.
In 1964, the FAA exempted the three-engine 727 and Trident from the regulation and, by the 1970s, the jet age had seen a tenfold increase in engine reliability. In 1983, discussions began to ease the rule for such twin-engine designs as the A300, 767 and 757.
The FAA introduced the two-hour rule in 1985 subject to meeting performance parameters over 12 consecutive months of operations. Aircraft also had to be fitted with additional back-up systems. This was dubbed Extended Twin Operations or ETOPS, which some renamed Engines Turning Or Passengers Swimming.
ETOPS was extended to three hours from an airport in 1988 as turbofan engines were demonstrating reliability 50 times that of piston engines. But airlines still had to demonstrate 12 consecutive months of two-hour ETOPS experience first.
In 1995, accelerated ETOPS was endorsed based on proven ETOPS processes reducing the need for prior airframe-engine service experience.
In 2000 the FAA approved a 15 per cent extension of the three-hour rule, but only for the Boeing 777 across the northern Pacific and on a case-by-case basis.
The 207-minute exemption, as it is called, was critical to the 777 for northern Pacific operations to cross a slice of airspace up to 160km wide over the Bering Sea that is more than three hours from a diversion airport when all six alternative airports in Alaska and northern Russia are unavailable owing to poor weather.
This happens about twice a year on average.
The effort resulted in some strongly worded exchanges between Boeing and Continental Airlines, which advocated the exemption, and Airbus which opposed it.
The FAA acknowledges that engine reliability is no longer the primary culprit in diversions.
In fact, according to Boeing, just 3 per cent of 777 ETOPS diversions are related to engine problems, while Airbus reports a similar experience for operators of A330s.
This radical change represents the culmination of almost 15 years of real-world experience with extended twin operations. Yet its implications extend beyond the realm of safety and engineering and into the commercial arena, where Boeing is pitting its ultra-long-range twins like the 777 and the 7E7 against Airbus's A340-500/600 quad-jets.
The NPRM process was done in co-ordination with a similar European initiative under the auspices of the JAA, but the JAA and Airbus want twins and quads separated, with differing rules.
Mahan Pandey, director of operational regulatory affairs at Boeing, which participated in both the Aviation Rule Making Advisory Committee meetings that led to the FAA NPRM and in the FAA/JAA meetings, concedes that there was not always total consensus on all points. "Our hope is we will be able to have a harmonised approach on both sides of the Atlantic."
However, the JAA has said that unless there are changes in the FAA's NPRM, its similar document would be radically different. This would result in a chaotic position for airlines.
The major areas affected by the potential impasse are the north and south Pacific, with most countries adopting the US position. Late last year Boeing demonstrated the latest model of its 777-300ER and flew it from Perth to Noumea on one engine. The aircraft also flew non-stop from Sydney to Recife, Brazil, a journey of 18 hours and 25 minutes.
During the test program the 777-300ER also landed in the wilds of Siberia at airports such as Yakutsk, Novosibirsk, and Petropavlosk, demonstrating its capability of landing on remote icy airfields.
The accessibility of these airports and the opening of new polar air routes over Russia make a big difference to airline economics.
The difference in performance between the worst conventional route and the best polar route is an airline accountant's dream - 11.34 tonnes in extra payload for the 777.
Qantas and Air New Zealand are observing the stand-off with more than passing interest.
Both airlines were at the forefront of ETOPS development with the 767s aircraft and have amassed considerable experience with them. Qantas and Air New Zealand operate 767s to a host of south and north Pacific destinations, while Qantas is about to introduce A330s on these routes.
==========================================