etops 180mins 1200nm exceeded

[Frosty Hoar]

A question for those of you operating long range etops flights,
are you happy to exceed the certified 180mins diversion etops rule time provided that the distance is under 1200nm from a suitable airport?

The reason for exceeding rule time is normally due to the wind component increasing the flight time over the given distance..

[763 jock]

It's not a question of whether I'm happy or not. The rules allow me to fly 180 minutes from a suitable diversion at the engine out speed (400 TAS for the 767-300) still air. You are correct that when the wind "on the day" is taken into account, you could be more than 180 mins from your suitable airfield. If it's legal, why would I not want to do it? My competitors would.........

[mutt]

Frosty Hoar

It also depends on the logic used for your flight plans. In our case the 120mins equals 840nms, however the CFP immediately drops the aircraft from cruise altitude to FL100 at the ETP, the calculation is there based upon 375KTAS, which in turn will give you a greater time than 120min even with NIL wind.

So basically the time can be exceeded but you may not operate outside your defined area of operation.

Mutt.

[Whispering Giant]

Arhhhhhhhhhhh frosty hoar - good to see your still around old buddy.

how you doing ???

brgds
W.G

[phoenix son]

Let's not forget the United Airlines 777 last year that flew an estimated 192-minute ETOPS diversion over the Southern Pacific last year - The rationale behind this was that it was better to push on that little bit further to an airfield with all required facilities rather than make do for the sake of a few minutes less single-engined flying. (I think this is kind of missing the point of the 180-minute rule being there in the first place, but at the same time the pilot's thinking makes sense).
Anyone know what the FAA's thoughts on this incident were?
Just my views on this subject...

PHX

[lomapaseo]

Let's not forget the United Airlines 777 last year that flew an estimated 192-minute ETOPS diversion over the Southern Pacific last year - The rationale behind this was that it was better to push on that little bit further to an airfield with all required facilities rather than make do for the sake of a few minutes less single-engined flying. (I think this is kind of missing the point of the 180-minute rule being there in the first place, but at the same time the pilot's thinking makes sense).
Anyone know what the FAA's thoughts on this incident were?
Just my views on this subject...

I'm not sure that I get your point?

If one assumes that at no time in the flight was the plane ever beyond 180 mins from a suitable, isn't it a judgement call of what the safer course is?

[earnest]

It’s not a question of judgement or applying any kind of ”rationale” to “push on a bit”. Mutt and 763 Jock have explained the rules. The trip is planned on the ground, pre-flight, using still air and typical single-engined speeds for the aircraft type. It is accepted by the operators and the regulatory authorities that if an engine failure happens at the furthest distance between two suitable airfields, the reality is that there probably will be a wind component and the aircraft’s cruise speed may be a bit different from the one used at the planning stage. So if 60, 120, 180 or 207 minutes are exceeded, no rules have been broken and nothing is less safe.

[Oilhead]

actually 177 minutes, from engine failure to touchdown in Kona. Not that it makes any difference! Why bother having numeric limits any more?

Am I happier (pucker factor reduction discernable) flying for 179 minutes on one engine than 181?!

[mono]

It's a long time since I looked into this but isn't there already provision for extension?

120 mins up to 138

180 up to 207

Could have all changed now of course. :rolleyes:

Cheers,

[Frosty Hoar]

Just to clarify we are using wind component calculations at the planning stage,giving a more accurate idea of diversion time,this begs the question why bother with diversion times if they can be exceeded, and instead use only distance limitations to certify the aircraft?