Singapore Airlines-ETOPS

[Insider107]

It's been suggested that the current ETOPS discussion has perhaps moved some way from the main theme of the SQ006 Revisited thread,

Whilst this discussion could be argued as corollary, in that it reveals SQ's cavalier attitude towards a highly relevant safety issue, it is worthwhile starting a new thread on the specific ETOPS subject, to allow a more focused treatment of the issues. Hence this thread,

Best regards Insider107

PS. Anyone wishing to pick up the thread of SQ ETOPS might like to check out the following hyperlink from SQ006 Revisited:
http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/Forum1/HTML/012079.html

[This message has been edited by Insider107 (edited 12 June 2001).]

[highcirrus]

Insider

Re your last posting I've also heard that SQ30 (the old SQ006)is now operating SIN-TPE using the B777 but B744 onwards to LAX. This maybe frees up B744 capacity to operate the AMS-ORD sector you mentioned?

Also its decision time this month for the A340-500. Big non returnable stage payment is now required by Airbus to keep the SQ programme going. Does this have anything to do with the ETOPS problems?

[mutt]

I thought that this topic was removed from R&N and placed in the Tech Forum a couple of days ago. http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/Forum3/HTML/002127.html

Why did you start it again?

Mutt

[stickyb]

Mutt, interesting comment. We seem to have a thread appaering in 2 places, since the original post that started both threads is the same date/time stamp.

Can you comment Danny?

[PPRuNe Towers]

I'd asked Insider by e-mail to consider kicking off a new thread to focus on the Etops isues. Another Admin or moderator moved the thread over to tech log as they didn't know this apparently technical issue was here on R+N by invitation.

I reopened the thread here when I discovered what had happened. With a bit of luck someone with some time on their hands can transfer the salient and substantive ETOPS parts of the SQ006 Revisited thread over to this one.

ETOPS definitions, rulings and requirements are presently very significant items being revised within both FAA and JAA committees and even anecdotal evidence provides some areas that may need to be looked at more closely.

------------------
Regards from the Towers
[email protected]

[hailstone]

highcirrus,
sq is operating sq30 ex sin with 744

[mutt]

That’s what I get for opening my big mouth, apologies to Insider107 and to you PT. :)

I find it hard to believe that this is true. (Taken from SQ006 topic)

So to summarise, SQ had not and still (as far as any of my colleagues are aware) has not established any of the above for (belatedly) the A310 or (latterly) the B777 operations, specifically ETOPS MEL, ETOPS Flight Planning, ETOPS Training/Checking, Engineering tracking of ETOPS engines and critical components nor established a 24 hour flight watch system – all common elements of every other ETOPS airline in the world.

We haven’t operated ONE ETOPS flight yet, but we have had crews trained for almost two years. This included ground and sim training and north atlantic training. We have trained ETOPS dispatchers and established nearly all of the required engineering tracking systems. We have flown simulated ETOPS flights over non-ETOPS routes for over a year and NOW you tell us that none of this was required?

BTW, the 777 MEL is an ETOPS MEL, there is no specific changes required for it.

You may be interested to know that I have endeavoured to obtain from CAAS, through a professional intermediary, definitive information on SQ 777 Trent engine reliability performance.

TRENT 890B 150,820 hrs on 18 aircraft.
The required IFSD rate is 0.02/1000 for 180 minutes and 0.05/1000 for 120 minutes. The present worldwide fleet average is 0.009 for the Trent and GE90, the PW is slightly better at 0.003.

You were talking about smoke and mirrors, well this is from good old Boeing… A summary of 18 IFSD’s out of 176,100 B777 ETOPS flights. Only one occurred in the ETOPS portion of the flight. IFSD rate on these B777 ETOPS flights is approximately 0.006 per 1000 engine flight hours.

Finally, Insider107, apart from the ICAO document, you might be interested in the FAA’s AC120-42A.

Good Luck.

Mutt….

[Landing Lights]

High Cirrus, the SQ decision on the 340-500 is about crew duty day approvals and Airbus delivering an aircraft that does the run SIN-LAX. ETOPS is twin related the last time I noticed unless the 340 is a twin... some joke it is its so l-o-w and s-l-o-w might as well be! SIN-LAX 19hrs or so...ughhh.

IF Airbus dont get their range and the regs allow the non-stop run Airbus pay SQ back... good deal by SQ I'd say.

[Insider107]

mutt

I regret that circumstances often render me incommunicado and absent from the pages of pprune, hence giving rise to the possible interpretation that I may be disinterested in further debate. Such is far from the case.

Thank you for you posting of 14 June 2001 in which you make a number of contextually correct statements, which I will briefly answer – I fear the stultifying effect of regurgitated, detailed subject matter, previously covered in depth. Suffice to say that it is my contention that SQ “marches to a different drum beat” and that whilst all other world airlines entirely adopt the ICAO recommendations for ETOPS, SQ adopts a singular, less rigorous and hence less costly approach – I will e-mail you these recommendations which also indicate the identical approach, for all practical purposes, of both ICAO and FAA. Perhaps you would e-mail me with your address?

1. Yes SQ has done all that you mention but following its own policy, not that of ICAO.

2. Yes SQ B777 MEL is an SQ ETOPS MEL – see 1. Above. You may care to note that, for instance, United specifically designates and equips certain B777’s as ETOPS aircraft, with separate MEL’s.

3. Yes the figures are correct but out of date – they are for first quarter 2001 and do not reflect events, post 31 March 2001 as they do not also reflect the many fraudulent IFSD avoidance events in the SQ annals and which CAAS is less then enthusiastic to discuss.

Finally, mutt, perhaps you could cast light on the SQ decision to withdraw the B777 indefinitely from the ICN-YVR and ICN-SFO routes, in light of such purportedly reassuring ETOPS statistics as you quote?


[This message has been edited by Insider107 (edited 21 June 2001).]

[highcirrus]

Landing Lights

Thank you very much for your piece of 14.06. Along with most people I'm aware that the 340 is unconstrained by ETOPS rules and also of the -500's intended role. However, I posted the information, not for your snickering gratification, but to draw attention to a situation critical to some pilots' fleet movement decisions and to genuinely enquire if an impact was being made on any future plans for a SIN-LAX capable B777.

[Anotherpost75]

Am I right in thinking that the latest and very recent Emirates B777 RR Trent IFSD was sustained by an aircraft belonging to the SIA aircraft leasing company and part of the same record 77aircraft order as the B777’s in current SIA service?

[smith]

Singapore Air May Buy GE Powered Boeing 777 Jets
(Flight International, July 17-23, p. 7)

By Andrzej Jeziorski

Singapore, July 17 (Bloomberg) -- Singapore Airlines may buy Boeing Co. 777 jets with General Electric engines, instead of more Rolls-Royce powered aircraft, Flight International reported, citing unidentified industry sources.

The airline is nearing a deadline to decide whether to turn a number of 777 options into firm orders and is now debating whether to opt for the long-range 777-200LR version of the jet, powered exclusively by General
Electric GE90 engines, the magazine reported.

The airline hasn't been granted the required certification to use its aircraft powered by Rolls-Royce engines on long-range, transpacific routes. Singapore Airlines denies that this is linked to five in-flight engine shutdowns the fleet has suffered since the type was introduced in 1997,Flight said.

The carrier wants to replace its four-engine Airbus Industrie A340-300s with the twin-engine 777 on the Singapore-Seoul- Vancouver route, which requires a higher level of long-range certification than the current fleet
has. Singapore Airlines is planning to retire its A340-300s, and has placed
five orders for ultra-long range A340-500s which it hopes to use on a direct Singapore-Los Angeles service from 2003.

[7times7]

Possibility that SIA might be dumping the A340-500 for the B777-200LR due to pax appeal, etc.

Though the B777-200LR would be released with 180 to 207min ETOPs certification from FAA, it still needs to be certified by local authorities, similar to the current B777-200ERs. B777-200LR would be an overkill to replace the A340-300 on the SEL-YVR or SEL-Frisco route. Maybe Hkg-Vegas? ;)

[ 18 July 2001: Message edited by: 7times7 ]