USA to drop ETOPS restrictions for qualified aircraft

[Algy]

Yup, really. From next month you can go anywhere if you've gone through all the right hoops (http://shortlinks.co.uk/yc).

[Basil]

To obtain approvals, an aircraft will need fire suppression systems sized for the requested time-to-alternate duration and adequate emergency oxygen supplies for the crew and the passengers. The aircraft will also have to carry automated external defibrillators.
Otherwise, the same weather reporting, training and diversion accommodation requirements as currently required will apply.
Fair enough although I'd like to hear a range of pilot, avionics and medical opinion on the defib.
FAA administrator Marion Blakey says the new rule will also boost aviation safety as it requires tri- and quad-engine aircraft - those for which there are currently no ETOPS rules - to meet the same standards as the twin-engine planes for flights over the poles or farther than 180min from an alternate airport.
Well, as professional flightcrew are aware as I am sure also is an FAA administrator, ETOPS rules do not apply to aircraft with more than two engines.
Extended TWIN Operations
Tri and quad aircraft already take fuel and oxygen supplies into account so what's the difference?
Are they going to make a quad land at the nearest suitable airport following an engine shut down?

[Lucifer]

Tri and quad aircraft already take fuel and oxygen supplies into account so what's the difference?
Are they going to make a quad land at the nearest suitable airport following an engine shut down?
Maintenance standards, reducing times between inspections. A move that is beneficial for all, as many have found lower costs as a result of fewer complete failures of parts due to increased preventative maintenance.

[Chimbu chuckles]

And this from the same administration that got it's knickers in a twist over a 744 flying 3 engines across the pond?

Is it any wonder that aviation administrations the world over get so little respect from professionals?

Someone should point out to them that they cannot have their cake and eat it too.:ugh:

[chornedsnorkack]

And this from the same administration that got it's knickers in a twist over a 744 flying 3 engines across the pond?
Is it any wonder that aviation administrations the world over get so little respect from professionals?
Someone should point out to them that they cannot have their cake and eat it too.:ugh:
Just for overview: how many long range-planes scheduled for delivery in, say, 2007 are destined to US flag carriers?

FAA does not control the civil aviation authorities of Europe, or United Arab Emirates et cetera.

[Chimbu chuckles]

You really think EK won't be making use of this...or BA,CX, QF, SQ,....etc

[chornedsnorkack]

You really think EK won't be making use of this...
They cannot. Unless they register as US flag carriers.

If they fly as Emirates airline, they have to abide by Emirates civil aviation regulations.

JAA, for one, has refused to grant the 207 min ETOPS.

[Groundloop]

Extended TWIN Operations
Tri and quad aircraft already take fuel and oxygen supplies into account so what's the difference?


Will not one of the new requirements for ALL aircraft is to have sufficient fire suppressant in all holds. ETOPS twins require this, but quads don't.

[vapilot2004]

Two-engine extended operations increased worldwide from fewer
than 1,000 per month in 1985 to more than 1,000 per day in 2004.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Meanwhile, extended operations engine reliability has improved to the point
that engine shutdowns occur less than half as often as they did in the 1980s.


I found both of these statistics interesting.

[dash6]

Perhaps we should be referring to EROPS. It matters not how many engines you have,if it's a hold,or cabin fire.
Was'nt the last controlled ditching in the North Atlantic a four engined aircraft? (Over to the history buffs.);)

[armada]

In my opinion, coming soon a country near you: single pilot ETOPS certification.

Remember the F/E? Gone.

F/O? Costs too much apparently. :ouch:

[WHBM]

Was'nt the last controlled ditching in the North Atlantic a four engined aircraft? (Over to the history buffs.)
Yes, and it was also a prop.

Last controlled ditching worldwide was probably the Ethiopian 767.

[Lucifer]

Yes, and it was also a prop.
Last controlled ditching worldwide was probably the Ethiopian 767.
On a reef though.

The last controlled ditching was the RAF Nimrod.

[Flap40]

The last controlled ditching was the RAF Nimrod.


And that had four engines too! :O :O

[JamesT73J]

I just read this over at FI's site. This is quite a change isn't it? Assuming it's purely based on the reliability statistics convincing the FAA that the time restriction is no longer necessary, why haven't the JAA considered it?

[PAXboy]

Non-aviation person speaking.
JamesT73JAssuming it's purely based on the reliability statistics convincing the FAA ...That looks like a mighty big assumption!! There is not much that happens in big business that happens for reasons anything other than money. If the UK's CAA had made this statement, then most Brits would assume that the big carriers had been lobbying behind the scenes. :ouch:

That said, the risks are fairly well documented and each carrier (and pax if they choose) can consider them. It is likely that it will still be more risky to drive to the airport. That said, I am old fashioned and, when selecting my UK~USA flight for this afternoon, one issue I checked was which a/c was planned to operate the sector and how many of those big silver drums does it have? The answer is four but, as I say, I am old fashioned. Eerrr, that means I am old. :sad:

[120.4]

If this change only applies to US carriers then will that give them an operating advantage over European carriers? The US guys could go more direct and therefore save time and fuel?

.4

[zerozero]

I'd expect this to ease Alaska Airlines expansion into Hawaii which they've already been talking about.

Aloha!

[donstim]

Perhaps we should be referring to EROPS. It matters not how many engines you have,if it's a hold,or cabin fire.
Was'nt the last controlled ditching in the North Atlantic a four engined aircraft? (Over to the history buffs.);)

The term "ETOPS" is being retained, but its definition is changed to "ExTended OPerations." Under the new rule, ETOPS applies to all extended airplane operations, regardless of the number of engines.

[donstim]

I just read this over at FI's site. This is quite a change isn't it? Assuming it's purely based on the reliability statistics convincing the FAA that the time restriction is no longer necessary, why haven't the JAA considered it?

The JAA have considered it. They, along with ICAO and more than 50 other members, were part of the working group that produced a recommendation to the FAA leading first to a proposed rule, and now to this final rule.

JAA (EASA) and ICAO intend to adopt similar rules, although there are likely to be some differences.

[JackOffallTrades]

This is good. It assumes that pilots flying N reg aircraft can count the number of engines on their aeroplane before getting in. :E :E :E

P.s. Don't ask me how many my plane has either.

[dontflygo]

Yup, really. From next month you can go anywhere if you've gone through all the right hoops (http://shortlinks.co.uk/yc).

Actually you still need FAA approval for Extended Ops.

http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=7975
http://dms.dot.gov/search/document.cfm?documentid=436040&docketid=6717


The rule:
http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/p88/436040.pdf

The FAA added some new equipment requirements (mostly for 3 and 4 engine aircraft), added some new ETOPS categories for the South Pacific, for example, and for Polar flights, and changed some definitions.

[Fropilot]

As usual this is all about money. He who pays the piper choses the tune.