What if ETOPS was abolished.....

[WindSheer]

An interesting cultural question I think.

What do you think airlines would do? Fly straight across the pond in twins?
All hypothetical of course........

[STBYRUD]

Every operator that really wants to already does (well, not straight across obviously, but ETOPS is rarely to blame for that)... By getting an appropriate ETOPS certification! What's your point?

[casablanca]

With the current 180 minutes ( some already longer) we already fly almost straight across...with few exceptions

[WindSheer]

If thats the case, ETOPS had just as well be abolished today then.

My point was, if the decision to operate a certain distance within suitable airfields was solely at the discretion of the airlines, what do you think they would do.

[Radix]

..........

[mikedreamer787]

With the current 180 minutes

3 hours is an awful bloody long time
over a dark and stormy sea when all
you have left is one donk! :uhoh:

[ACMS]

ETOPS as a name doesn't exist now for quite a lot of states. ( at least in HK, HKCAD follows ICAO )

It's called EDTO

Extended Diversion Time Operations

There are now rules for 4 Eng A/C as well.

Extended Diversion Time Operations (EDTO) The following flights are considered EDTO flights:
• operations of a twin engined aircraft conducted over a route that contains a point further than 60 minutes flying time in still air, at the specified one engine inoperative cruising speed, from an adequate airport
• operations in a four engined aircraft conducted over a route that contains a point further than 180 minutes flying time in still air, at the specified all engine operative cruising speed, from an adequate airport.

[SOPS]

That's intersting, my company is operating at 207 minutes for 2 engine aircraft.

[c100driver]

ETOPs 207 minutes is just a 15% extension of 180 minutes and was because USA to Japan was just outside the 180 minute range. B777 300ER is currently capable/approved out to 240 minutes (depending on the AIMS update and increased fire suppression capability). A small number of Airlines are already operating the B777 at 240. A few coming modifications to the B777 should see the ultimate approval out to 330 minutes.

ETOPs was a simplistic approach based of number of engines fitted and proven reliability.

EDTO is more about the whole operation of aircraft beyond an alternate airport, with fire suppression, main systems (electrical, hydraulic, pneumatic etc) redundancy and reliability plus fuel planning requirement, so it also picks up tri's and quads.

[Capot]

ETOPs was a simplistic approach based of number of engines fitted and proven reliability.

ETOPs was a simplistic approach based of number of engines fitted, proven reliability, and blind faith that if a statistical analysis predicts that an event is so unlikely it cannot, for practical purposes, happen, then it won't happen.

The event in the case of ETOPS being a second engine failure in a 2-engine aircraft, except in circumstances where additional engines would have made no difference, eg running out of fuel.

I don't have that blind faith as a result of bitter experience of the perverse nature of machines, so I won't fly in a twin-engine public transport aircraft on a sector that relies on that blind faith.

The problem is that the second engine failure, if it happens, may well be the consequence of mis-management, aka finger trouble, perhaps as a result of the stress of the first engine failure and prospect of 180 minutes single-engine flight over water, and the failure statistics do not take human fallibility into account.

Sod's Law tells us, doesn't it, that the first engine failure may well happen just when things are getting tricky for entirely unconnected reasons; weather, maybe, diversion closure, Captain has a heart attack, whatever.

But then, what do I know. Modern materials, engineering, designs, electronics; sudden failures are a thing of the past. Just because things went wrong in the past for entirely unforeseen reasons, doesn't mean that they'll do so in the future.

Doesn't it?

[Big Pistons Forever]

A few coming modifications to the B777 should see the ultimate approval out to 330 minutes.


What routes require 5 and 1/2 hours flying time to get to the the nearest diversion airfield ? That is a hell of a long way to fly even with the reduced airspeed on one engine.

[FlyingStone]

I think Perth - Johannesburg is one of them...

[Capot]

Going back to the "blind faith", I have always been puzzled by the logic of saying that engines and systems are so reliable and therefore a second engine failure is so unlikely that we'll allow people to fly over water and far from a safe-ish place to land, and then adding that the confidence that there won't be a second failure lasts precisely 180 minutes (or some other fairly arbitrary figure) so it's OK, boys, just so long as you get your asses back on the ground within 180 minutes.

Why does the risk of a second engine failure suddenly increase after 180 minutes, or whatever the figure might be? Statistically, that second failure is as likely to happen 68 minutes after the first failure as it is 374 minutes after the first failure (ignoring things such as fuel quantity and consumption).

ETOPS makes very little sense to me, apart from ensuring that certain useful bits of equipment are working properly, which is always a good idea that could probably be applied to all flights.

[WindSheer]

Its an interesting debate then between safety and profit.

I honestly think that if ETOPS was abolished tomorrow, we would see twins many hours away from a suitable diversion..........