SCL-AKL feasible with any long-range business jets?

[and_a_dog]

SCL-AKL is one of the most challenging routes in the world in terms of ETOPS needs. LATAM flies it non-stop on a most-direct routing with some very high ETOPS rating (>>180min). There is a longer non-stop routing staying a bit north that keeps you within range of IPC and PPT and probably can be just accomplished within ETOPS 180.

Questions:
- Do any long-range business jets available for charter have >180min ETOPS?
- Which business jets have the range to do this route west-bound non-stop with 6-8 people and luggage?

- and_a_dog

[Booglebox]

I believe Global Aviation in Hillsboro, Oregon, might have 2 Gulfstream Vs with either ETOPS-207 or -240 approval.

[deing]

A Falcon 8X should be able to do it, maybe also a 7X.

[Global Aviator]

The new Global 7500...

[stilton]

Never been involved in biz jet ops but why would they need to comply with ETOPS ?

[rak64]

Why not plan more north, by using a waypoint like 30W50.
That is 5760 Nm instead of 5230 NM directly.

[josephfeatherweight]

The new Global 7500...
It can indeed - this is using SCIP NTTO NTAA NSTU NFFN as enroute ETPS (180min at approx 390 KTAS) - plenty of room for pax and bags AND arrive with 6000lbs fuel (which is A LOT!)
Current flight time is approx 14.5 hours at M0.85.
It'll cost ya, though!

[josephfeatherweight]

Never been involved in biz jet ops but why would they need to comply with ETOPS ?
I guess it depends on your NAA, however most commercial ops need to comply with ETOPS - but if it's the boss down the back (ie Private Part 91), then follow the great circle! (Too far south for my comfort!)
GC dist is approx 5220nm - staying within the ETOPS rings adds another 1000nm or so...

[Duchess_Driver]

A Falcon 8X should be able to do it, maybe also a 7X.



Am I missing something here - why would a 7/8x be constrained by ETOPS? Both have the legs...

[Empty Cruise]

...not to mention the engines. 180min comes as standard with 3, so less of a need....

[deing]

That's why I suggested to use a three engined Falcon, it avoids the etops requirement. Not sure if other rules come into play if flying so far from a suitable airport

[and_a_dog]

Thanks all. Hoping it won't become necessary for the situation I'm monitoring if LATAM resumes SCL-AKL in early 2021. (It would be *costly* as josephfeatherweight points out!) But, good to know it seems feasible with a reasonably available jet (Falcon), not just hypothetical. -aad

[EatMyShorts!]

And making an intermediate stop is no option? Tahiti is nice.

[Asturias56]

They also can stop in Easter Island/Isla de pascua/Rapa Nui - I did this last year and we had a nice 5:30 trip as the first leg

[Noeyedear]

You can usually qualify for non-ETOPs EROPs with 2 engines out to 180 minutes, but 3 engines, 4 engines or 5 engines, if your cabin depressurises approaching your final ETP/CP and you're heading for a remote airport or Island destination, you're probably going to wish you had less engines.

As a Commercial Op, you'd plan for this scenario. Part 91, you just keep your fingers crossed.

[josephfeatherweight]

Part 91, you just keep your fingers crossed.

You're not wrong! :uhoh:

[Spooky 2]

You're not wrong! :uhoh:


Pretty sure ETOPS has no application to FAR Part 91, and only would apply to FAR Part 135 in excess of 180+ minutes. A little different than FAR Part 121. Good operating practices would dictate operational planing that would not expose you to either a EO or Decompression scenario regardless of regulatory oversight.

[josephfeatherweight]

Good operating practices would dictate operational planing that would not expose you to either a EO or Decompression scenario regardless of regulatory oversight.

Absolutely - you're not allowed to run out of fuel whilst depressurised and tracking to an ETP - it's just that in the Part 91 case (NAA dependent) that ETP is not constrained to be within 180 mins.