Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Biz Jets, Ag Flying, GA etc.
Reload this Page >

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

Wikiposts
Search
Biz Jets, Ag Flying, GA etc. The place for discussion of issues related to corporate, Ag and GA aviation. If you're a professional pilot and don't fly for the airlines then try here.

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

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 13th Aug 2020, 18:21
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Chile
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
SCL-AKL feasible with any long-range business jets?

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
and_a_dog is offline  
Old 14th Aug 2020, 16:03
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Timbuktu
Posts: 962
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I believe Global Aviation in Hillsboro, Oregon, might have 2 Gulfstream Vs with either ETOPS-207 or -240 approval.
Booglebox is offline  
Old 14th Aug 2020, 17:19
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: belgium
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A Falcon 8X should be able to do it, maybe also a 7X.

deing is offline  
Old 14th Aug 2020, 20:53
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Equatorial
Age: 51
Posts: 1,074
Received 130 Likes on 63 Posts
The new Global 7500...
Global Aviator is offline  
Old 14th Aug 2020, 21:30
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 2,089
Likes: 0
Received 9 Likes on 8 Posts
Never been involved in biz jet ops but why would they need to comply with ETOPS ?
stilton is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2020, 00:03
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Germany
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Why not plan more north, by using a waypoint like 30W50.
That is 5760 Nm instead of 5230 NM directly.
rak64 is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2020, 03:52
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: The wrong time zone...
Posts: 844
Received 60 Likes on 24 Posts
Originally Posted by Global Aviator
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 is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2020, 03:56
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: The wrong time zone...
Posts: 844
Received 60 Likes on 24 Posts
Originally Posted by stilton
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...
josephfeatherweight is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2020, 07:49
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hotel this week, hotel next week, home whenever...
Posts: 1,492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

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...
Duchess_Driver is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2020, 09:46
  #10 (permalink)  

ECON cruise, LR cruise...
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: MIRSI hold - give or take...
Age: 52
Posts: 568
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
...not to mention the engines. 180min comes as standard with 3, so less of a need....
Empty Cruise is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2020, 17:04
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: belgium
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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
deing is offline  
Old 16th Aug 2020, 10:31
  #12 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Chile
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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
and_a_dog is offline  
Old 16th Aug 2020, 11:41
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 702
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
And making an intermediate stop is no option? Tahiti is nice.
EatMyShorts! is offline  
Old 16th Aug 2020, 15:44
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 8,501
Received 368 Likes on 216 Posts
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
Asturias56 is online now  
Old 16th Aug 2020, 19:14
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: East of Luxor
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 4 Posts
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.

Noeyedear is offline  
Old 16th Aug 2020, 23:48
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: The wrong time zone...
Posts: 844
Received 60 Likes on 24 Posts
Originally Posted by Noeyedear
Part 91, you just keep your fingers crossed.
You're not wrong!
josephfeatherweight is offline  
Old 18th Aug 2020, 20:24
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: USofA
Posts: 1,235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by josephfeatherweight
You're not wrong!

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.
Spooky 2 is offline  
Old 18th Aug 2020, 22:47
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: The wrong time zone...
Posts: 844
Received 60 Likes on 24 Posts
Originally Posted by Spooky 2
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.
josephfeatherweight is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.