FAA proposal: ETOPS for 4 engine a/c

[joema]

FAA proposes to extend certain ETOPS requirements to 3 and 4 engine aircraft:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/134597146_faa17.html

Here's another link in case URL is too long:

http://tinyurl.com/3mzb

[Captain Sensible]

"The biggest advantage to Boeing (of the new proposed regulations) is one of perception," said Chet Ekstrand, vice president of regulatory affairs at Boeing. "In making these recommendations, a widespread industry-government team has fundamentally said, 'We've reached the point where twin- and four-engine airplanes are equal, and we ought to treat them as such.' "

You can't gainsay the logic of this opinion, or can you?

[Rabbit]

Politics is a wonderful thing isn't it?????

Once again Boeing lobbying seems to be working well. Is there any trick they won't try to get an advantage??

Have a nice day

[Techman]

If twin- and four engine airplanes are now equal, shouldn't the twin then be operated to the same requirements as the quad. And not vice versa!!.:rolleyes:

[mutt]

Techman

Operationally the standards for a twin are more stingent than for a quad, so are you talking from a technical point of view?

Mutt

[Wino]

NO

The problem with safety has been onboard FIRES, not engine failures. The Quads are not required to have firefighting capabilites for the times they are away from a nearby landing field, while the ETOPS twins are required to have cargo firefighting for the entire ETOPS portion of the flight.

A quite sensible precaution in my opinion, and it is long overdue that this be applied to ALL airliners, and that is what is being referred to. The other precaution that is quite sensible is that no one person gets to work on all the engines, so that you avoid a repeat of the Eastern L1011 where all the gaskets were left out of the engines and all 3 engines ran out of oil, and they just barely made it into Miami before the final engine expired.

You can jawbone about protectionism all you want, but these changes are long overdue in view of recent events!

Cheers,
Wino

[Bubbette]

As SLF, I still think the ETOPS rules are scary; I still wouldn't want to wait 207 minutes to land in an emergency situation.

[Techman]

I was being sarcastic Mutt, since these recomendations obviously have nothing to do with the number of engines on the airplane. Eventhough a certain company would like to put that spin on it.

[Wino]

Ahhh, but bubbette thats exactly the problem. On the non etops aircraft you may wait far LONGER to land with a much more serious problem than an engine failure....

Cheers
Wino

[PaperTiger]

The 414-minute rule ? ;)

[lomapaseo]

So if number of engines is a moot point and things like fire safety is a significant concern, how will they alot decisions on Etops 120 min vs 210 min rules?

Will it be based on burn through time?

[411A]

In the end, does it really matter?

The last time I can recall a four-engined aircraft having to ditch, it was a Stratocruiser next to ocean station November at 30N 140W...a very long time ago.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Guess guys in offices have nothing better to do.

[GlueBall]

Haven't heard of a 3+ engine jet going into the pond, except for the Faucett 727 ferry flight attempting to go from KEF to YQX without Long Range Nav, apparently went way off course and ran out of gas, never to be seen again.

[Wino]

Glueball,
you got a short memory.
Swissair MD11 went into the pond just 2 years ago or so.
SouthAfrican 747 went into the ocean when a cargo fire which had been burning for hours finally burned through the aircraft.

PANAM lost a 707 to a cargo fire, they almost made it the airplane broke up on downwind I think to Boston.

Lots more 3 and 4 engine aircraft have been lost to on board fires than twins have gone down from a failure of the second enigne (excluding fuel starvation or complete crew stupidity)

Bout time the standards were tightened as I was saying....

Cheers
WIno

[bblank]

"The other precaution that is quite sensible is that no one person gets
to work on all the engines, so that you avoid a repeat of the Eastern L1011
where all the gaskets were left out of the engines and all 3 engines ran
out of oil, and they just barely made it into Miami before the final engine
expired."



Sensible, Wino, but it won't necessarily avoid a repeat. In fact, just
before the EA855 accident that you cite two mechanics worked on
the engines - one mechanic worked on engines 1 and 3 and a second mechanic
worked on number 2. Both messed up in the same way. Anyway, it's not the
best example for you to bring up in this thread because the pilots would
have ditched had they not had a third engine to restart. Engine 2 didn't
quite run out of oil. It had been shut down on the way to Nassau, the Captain
elected to return to Miami, and after 1 and 3 failed during the return the
pilots were able to restart number 2 (with only about 2.5 minutes of glide
time left).

[Max Angle]

The proposed rule change makes good sense to me. With sector times getting longer and longer and flying over more remote parts of the Earth the weak link in the system is no longer the engines (allthough 4 still get my vote over two, all things being equal) but the other systems on the a/c with fire suppression at the top of the list.

Put a piece of string on a globe between Dubai and the West coast of the US and think about where you are going to go if you have a fire or cabin pressure problem. Looks pretty scary to me no matter how many engines are on the thing.

The other factor that needs to be looked at for high North and South polar routes is the facilities at the airfield for passengers. Little point in getting your 400+ pax. on the ground and evacuated safely if they all freeze to death 60 minutes later because there is nowhere for them to go. Depending on the weather you could be there for a long time, days, perhaps even a week or more.

[411A]

...yes indeed, and it gives a rather different meaning to "nearest suitable airport", etops or no etops.

[gjp]

When sitting over the middle of the ocean or any remote area there is a distinct "feel good factor" being in a 3 or 4 engined aircraft.

Ever lost an engine in a "Twin" in a remote area - if so, you would rather be in a 4 engined aircraft.

Two engined ops over remote area's obviously rediculous - Thats why you need ETOPS - a compromise!

4 engines over 2 - any day - safer - isn't that what it's all about or have we lost site of the fact that things can still go wrong.

Lets keep the odds in our favour.

[West Coast]

Four engines over two is a great idea if its an engine problem. If its about pretty much anything else, I would rather be in the two holer. Different levels of safety are accepted for the same mission. A fire in the hold is a fire in the hold, no matter if it occurs over top a suitable airport or over the middle of the Pacific, it needs to be fought/supressed. Why would we argue that the non etops aircraft should have less protection than etops if they fly over the same stretch of water?

[Rabbit]

Why do you say quads are less safe than twins. Fire fighting/suppression in the holds is the same on all modern aircraft. Quads tend to have much more redundancy built in in all areas not just the engines. The Twins have had to have these items added and the MEL usually is a higher level because the twins usually have less redundancy.

Having operated ETOP's twins in the past and now a long haul quad, I know what the companies and I prefer - a quad.

Have a nice day :D

[Buster Hyman]

So, shouldn't it become EQOPS now?

[gjp]

Well said Rabbit

The quad I fly has 240 mins fire protection - thats pretty good I'd say

[Wino]

But not all of them do, and None of them are REQUIRED to.

That is the rule that is being changed gjp. Just because your company opted to take the expense of adding the firefighting beyong the regulations required of it does not mean that all operators did.

So basically, it will be to your advantage to have etops rules extended to all aircraft as the firefighting expenses willnow have to be born by all quad operators, not just your company.

Rabbit, its not the same on all aircraft, some operators have virtually none other than the theoretical "Self smothering" compartments that worked so well for valujet down in the everglades.

Cheers
Wino

[411A]

All US operators have been required to fit fire suppression and extinguishing equipment to aircraft cargo holds since the 2001 deadline.
Nothing new here.

And...a very good idea, IMO.

[Wino]

411a yeah but the length of supression time is being increased.

Cheers
Wino

[maxalt]

Buster Hyman, it's being named LROPs - Long Range Ops.

[lomapaseo]

Buster Hyman, it's being named LROPs - Long Range Ops.

Interesting, does that mean that no regard is to be taken of long routes that are over lots of land masses with lots of airports.

[maxalt]

lomapaseo there's a much better explanation of this concept at THIS (http://www.airbus.com/pdf/customer/fast28/lrops.pdf) link than I could give.

[maxalt]

Apologies...link edited and now correct!

[lomapaseo]

there's a much better explanation of this concept at THIS link than I could give.

Uh, thanks. However I notice that it was an Airbus document written with the statistical non-descript word may in several places justifying its intent.

I prefer to read a regulatory justification instead if it indeed has one.

[4dogs]

Buster and Max,

I always thought that ICAO and others referred to EROPs (Extended Range Operations), of which ETOPS was a subset specifically for twins. Mind you, that was 10 years ago so it is probably time to re-invent the wheel.