PDA

View Full Version : Air New Zealand to take 777-300ERs with 330min ETOPS


oldchina
14th Dec 2011, 11:17
A simple survey to see who thinks this is going too far (literally).

Is it ok for you to be expected to fly for 330 minutes to the nearest suitable alternate, on one engine, knowing the other is as dead as a dodo?

Johnny Tightlips
14th Dec 2011, 11:39
The engine failing is not the worst thing. If you have a fire on board somewhere that it can not be found or extinguished you have roughly 20 min to get it on the ground whether it's an airport or not. That's my biggest fear, most other problems you will have time to sort it out or at least isolate the damage.

sky9
14th Dec 2011, 11:43
That goes for whether you have a twin or 4 engine aircraft. Twins used to have better fire suppression, I don't know whether that is still the case.

Dave Gittins
14th Dec 2011, 12:00
What routes require such a long ETOPS period .... and would it require a more stringent MEL than say 138 mins ?

737-NG
14th Dec 2011, 12:13
It's all about money. Airlines don't want to spend fuel on 4 engine planes anymore. But come on, 5 and a half hours on a twin engine that only has one remaining in function? And i used to think 180 ETOPS was too much already and they should have kept it at 120 max. Now 330mn I don't even see the use of having ETOPS anymore it doesn't make sense!

Stiletto 120
14th Dec 2011, 12:17
so often an idea is a great idea until it isn't

Nassim Taleb would be a suitable chap to consult for this subject

fireflybob
14th Dec 2011, 13:07
United 777 engine out and ETOPS (http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-32492.html)

You can prove anything with statistics and the MTBF rate is extremely good but the ideal a/c was when the flight engineer tapped the Captain on the shoulder to say "We've just lost number four!" to which he replies "Which side?"

Flightmech
14th Dec 2011, 13:22
As Dave Gittins said, what route would require the use of 330 minute ETOPS? 5 and a half hours from a landing?

fireflybob
14th Dec 2011, 13:28
It will give more flexibility when en route alternates are below the required weather minima - in fact at the despatch stage they won't have to (legally) consider as many en route alternates.

kwateow
14th Dec 2011, 13:57
"Some of you on the right side of the plane may have seen big chunks of metal fly out of the no2 engine....

... however there is no cause for alarm because we still have one good engine and we are only 2500 miles from the next suitable runway...

... despite the fact that the no1 engine appears to be holding together right now, you may be reassured to know that we carry a small stock of polar bear repellent and shark repellent"

Heathrow Harry
14th Dec 2011, 14:24
'twas Lord Brabazon who, when asked why Bristol Brabazon had 8 engines replied:-

"because I couldn't fit ten onto it..."

Seriously tho' why bother with ETOPS - the only reason I can think of is that I suppose if it wasn't required they'd fly any old rubbish 330 minutes from safety. At least teis way they have to upgrade some systems

Nick 1
14th Dec 2011, 16:33
Maybe they want to bring the whole thing back to home , instead of land somewhere behind enemy lines .
Is the only reason i can see to fly 330 min Etops.

mogas-82
14th Dec 2011, 17:45
As Dave Gittins said, what route would require the use of 330 minute ETOPS? 5 and a half hours from a landing?

AKL-EZE and maybe AKL-SCL
currently only Aerolineas Argentina (to EZE) and LAN (to SCL) are flying non-stop from AKL to South America - both use A340. Similar route is flown by Qantas (to SCL and EZE) with 747s.

slamer.
14th Dec 2011, 18:48
Its not ETOP's anymore, it's EDTO.

Herod
14th Dec 2011, 19:39
Don't forget that the remaining engine you're relying on was manufactured and maintained by the same company/individual as the one that has failed. :eek:

clark y
14th Dec 2011, 22:24
At least you get life rafts/ELB's.

Here in Oz, some bright spark has approved flights upto 400nm from land with no life rafts.

Just jump on the escape slides you may say. That may sound fine but there is no portable ELB's to grab on the way out.

tarmac-
14th Dec 2011, 22:46
As if life rafts will be even get to the point of being used in the event of engine outages over the ocean.

Escape Path
14th Dec 2011, 23:34
ETOPS 330 sort of beats the purpose of even having ETOPS at all doesn't it? 5 and half hours on one engine is an idea that doesn't offer much soothing to my soul...

As if life rafts will be even get to the point of being used in the event of engine outages over the ocean.

You know, I've always found sort of daft that requirement by airlines "to be able to swim 1 and a half mile unaided". We ain't swimming much if we ever ditch! :rolleyes:

aterpster
15th Dec 2011, 01:05
What good do rafts do at 75 North 80 West when the second engine throws craps?

Sydy
15th Dec 2011, 02:09
Keep the corps afloat?

Bobbsy
15th Dec 2011, 03:34
THIS (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-to-offer-330-minute-etops-on-777s-365910/) is the FlightGlobal article on the topic.

It says:

Air New Zealand is the first airline to purchase the 330-minute ETOPS option. "This means the airplane is able to fly a straighter route between the city pairs and that's good for the environment," said Capt David Morgan, Air New Zealand's chief pilot.

The new FAA approval allows "airlines that operate routes in the south Pacific, over the North Pole, and from Australia to South America and southern Africa to fly the most direct routes", added Boeing.

I do enjoy how they spin the more direct routings as "good for the environment" rather than "saving money on fuel".

before landing check list
15th Dec 2011, 04:53
I use to fly hours over water with one engine, I don't much care for it but never had a problem. I like more then 2 engines also but in reality, how many is enough?

stilton
15th Dec 2011, 08:11
It will not be long before there will be no ETOPS restrictions.


It is inevitable.

blade
15th Dec 2011, 09:26
Surely its 3:30 Etops AKA 210 minutes

Misterredmist
15th Dec 2011, 10:13
ANZ aren't opening up the ill-fated Antarctic sightseeing trip again are they ? :-o

compressor stall
15th Dec 2011, 10:57
It's sad that many of the posts on here show so little understanding of what EDTO/ETOPS certification involves.

TURIN
15th Dec 2011, 11:16
Don't forget that the remaining engine you're relying on was manufactured and maintained by the same company/individual as the one that has failed.

Not strictly true.

ETOPS Maintained a/c need to have similar critical systems checked/serviced by different personel. This includes engine oil servicing, IDG servicing, etc. :ok:

Dave Gittins
15th Dec 2011, 11:53
compressor stall said : "It's sad that many of the posts on here show so little understanding of what EDTO/ETOPS certification involves."

My understanding is that it means the aeroplane has sufficient redundancy with such things as generators driven from the hydraulics and hydraulics driven off the lectrics - as well as direct from the engines, systems that allow all the systems (undercart deployment, flaps, elevators, ailerons) to be driven in the event of a single engine failure; plus a proven record of low engine inflight shut down rates and an approved minimum equipment list at dispatch, that the certification authorities believe the risks of flying some specific time (distance at a given speed) from the nearest available airfield are acceptable.

The new acronym is Extended Diversion Time Operations and this is one document that sets out one set of rules http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/download/caaps/ops/82_1.pdf

Why do you think other posters are wide of the mark ?

Bobbsy
15th Dec 2011, 12:43
@blade

Nope. It's 330 minute, not 3 hour and 30 minute.

See THIS (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-to-offer-330-minute-etops-on-777s-365910/) Flightglobal article.

FE Hoppy
15th Dec 2011, 13:22
slamer. Its not ETOP's anymore, it's EDTO.

Only in Aus.

AdamFrisch
15th Dec 2011, 15:47
But there are many routes where 330 min could be useful. NZ to South America, any flights crossing Antarctica, US to South Africa etc.

slamer.
15th Dec 2011, 19:29
And NZ where these Aircraft are to operate from. Consider this in the context of EDTO (not ETOP's) and things become clearer. As for those states that dont have EDTO, Im sure they soon will.

reynoldsno1
16th Dec 2011, 00:06
I do enjoy how they spin the more direct routings as "good for the environment" rather than "saving money on fuel".

'Tis easy to do, fuel savings x 3 = tonnes of CO2 (approx) ...:ok:

pointless username
16th Dec 2011, 07:39
The real deciding factor for ETOPS times is not "how long can you fly on 1 engine", as the answer is effectively infinitely; these engines have a phenomonally low IFSD rate.
It is fire suppression (for the holds) that is the limiting factor.

ExSp33db1rd
16th Dec 2011, 09:07
We've just lost number four!" to which he replies "Which side?"

When I first heard that it was No. Eight

Lost an engine on a 747 during climb, dumped and went back. Co-pilot queried this decision as we had enough fuel to continue to destination on 3, it being one of those fuel-tankering sectors - i.e. cheaper to top up ( and carry ) with cheap(er) fuel at that departure point. I pointed out that there was a lot of shark infested ocean between departure and arrival points.

QED

RevMan2
16th Dec 2011, 12:31
Don't forget that the remaining engine you're relying on was manufactured and maintained by the same company/individual as the one that has failed.

Ah yes, but the chances of its also being built on a Monday morning are only 1 in 7...

lomapaseo
16th Dec 2011, 13:21
effectively infinitely; these engines have a phenomonally low IFSD rate

That's what I like about discussion boards :E

Cold hard facts

actually the poster's assesment that it's mostly aircraft and not engines as the issue is correct

oldchina
16th Dec 2011, 13:58
The crew will have 5h+ to think about the IFSD rate at max continuous thrust.

Who knows? A few tests by Boeing / Engine manufacturer but not enough hours to be statistically valid.

J52
16th Dec 2011, 21:21
Just build them all with one engine to start with, imagine the fuel savings and other economies that will deliver. If the rationale is to continue flight on one engine for a time which would cover most transit sectors in the world then why do you need two engines to start with? Most commercial flights take off using reduced thrust settings to start with and then reduce thrust further once in the cruise so that the combined thrust of 2 engines would be roughly equal to one engine operating at higher thrust settings. Redundancy can still be supplied and applied through design for one engine (as it is now for ETOPS). It is nothing new for single engine jet aircraft to operate over large expanses of ocean, it was being done long before ETOPS was ever thought of, with the limiting flight time factor being the engine oil capacity.

Whygaf
17th Dec 2011, 14:25
Sorry to say, servicing (eng oil, idg, bug) does not require separate maintenance crew. Only so many eng systems require separate maint teams, this can also be negated by testing. ETOPS rules with regards to critical system maintenance have never been totally definitive so room for different interpretations exist. I have worked for 2 operators of 777 etops and they both play it differently, which demonstrates the point.

bakutteh
17th Dec 2011, 18:11
It would be an ideal ETOPS requirement to have 2 different sets of maintenance crew service the two engines separately using two different batches of engine oil and other stuff. Then they should cross-check each other's work. Well this ideal arrangement NEVER happens in the real world despite several incidents.

One incident that come to mind; some years ago an MAS B777 on an ETOPS flight suffered low oil quantity and pressure on BOTH engines about 30 minutes after takeoff. Luckily they beat a hasty return for landing ( without shutting down any engines due to LOP! )...the maintenance crew had left both engine oil tank caps open after oil servicing! It was a very close call.

lomapaseo
17th Dec 2011, 18:29
Makes a difference if it is regularly sheduled maintenance (planned over months) or a response to a squwak.

Some examples of problem areas were

serviced oil on both engines and left filler caps off

Performed emergency borescope inspection of both engines after birdstrike and left both borescope plugs off,

Checkd both engines for signs of oil-hiding and failed to properly secure the cowls

and who can forget the EAL L1011 with all three engines.

It's those off-line stations that I worry about that don't often erform the action on that particular sustem

TURIN
17th Dec 2011, 19:35
It is a requirement of all the ETOPS maintained aircraft that I have had the dubious privelige to certify that...
1. Engine oil servicing must be carried out (and certified in most cases) by seperate individuals who have been trained on type and received ETOPS recurrent training.
2.This also applies to IDGs and BUGs.

British, US, Far East & Middle East all seem to operate in a similar fashion.

The only exceptions I have come across is one far eastern airline accepts that one individual may top up the engine oils but they MUST be cross checked by a seperate Eng/Tech. Also some US carriers allow one mech to service both engine oils as long as they use different methods. IE Pressure fill on one and pour through the filler neck on the other.

Spooky 2
17th Dec 2011, 22:10
Amazing, 45 posts and your all wrapped around the power plant issues. The limiting factor for this extension is fire suppression in the cargo holds, not how long you can run on one engine.You guys need to spend a little time reading AC120-42B before you start hitting the reply or send button.:}

kinteafrokunta
18th Dec 2011, 00:19
Equally amazing is that it is not understood that ETOPS was promulgated primarily to deal with the propulsion systems and other aircraft systems were just bridesmaids.

If you have a raging fire in your cargo holds or anywhere else, it matters squat how many dongs you have!

It would be LROPS, if you want to consider the fire suppression systems. Most ETOPS aircraft have fire suppression capability of more than 240 minutes.......anyway what do I know?

Wizofoz
18th Dec 2011, 01:21
Just build them all with one engine to start with, imagine the fuel savings and other economies that will deliver. If the rationale is to continue flight on one engine for a time which would cover most transit sectors in the world then why do you need two engines to start with?

Because noone is saying one wll never fail( though it doesn't often). It's about building a system where it is extremely unlikely that BOTH will fail. There are indeed single-engine Airline operations and, generally, they deviver high degrees of saftey.

two engines provide even more.

Uncle_Jay
18th Dec 2011, 05:05
Two engines, over water, perfect weather, 6 miles to runway...God laughs at our silly etops plans.

PAXboy
18th Dec 2011, 14:22
Shall I hazard a prediction?

At some point, a 330 min ETOPS (or even 220) will go in with loss of all persons. ETOPS will get restricted during the investigation. Depending on the outcome, it might even be restricted a bit longer.

But, ETOPS (or any other acronym) is the only game in the world and it WILL continue. Inevitably, this being a human enterprise, some people will die.

lomapaseo
18th Dec 2011, 17:27
Shall I hazard a prediction?

At some point, a 330 min ETOPS (or even 220) will go in with loss of all persons. ETOPS will get restricted during the investigation. Depending on the outcome, it might even be restricted a bit longer.

But, ETOPS (or any other acronym) is the only game in the world and it WILL continue. Inevitably, this being a human enterprise, some people will die.


Your predictions are likley to be true but it is more likely that it will be a 4 engine aircraft.

However, even with that, single data points are not significant to statistical analyis and regardless of the cause, the mechanical causal factors will be considered (are they segment time related) rather than I-told-you-so predictions.

Flightmech
18th Dec 2011, 18:22
For ETOPS at our carrier. Eng oil/BUG/IDG servicing by two seperate ETOPS qualified personnel is preferred but one is acceptable. Work on dual ETOPS signifcant systems by the same person requires a verfication flight.

Spooky 2
18th Dec 2011, 21:42
PAXboy get over it. Your predictions are, how do I put it...dumb. Of course some day we will lose an ETOPS aircraft just as the AF 330. You didn't see ETOPS even being questioned in that accident. Where do you come up with this BS anyway? :mad: