Huh why does A320 need ETOPS to fly between PER - SYD - MEL
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: PPrune nominee 2011!
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Huh why does A320 need ETOPS to fly between PER - SYD - MEL
Okay,
I am a bean counter and work away in the back office of the airline industry making all the figures work.
I overheard someone saying that if your wanting to fly from Perth to Sydney / Melbourne in an A320 you need ETOPS??????
Hence why 4 x Jetstar A320 have ETOPS.
i dunno guys someone help becuase all i am doing now is
Oh and Btw are 757's certifide to fly domestically in Australia
I am a bean counter and work away in the back office of the airline industry making all the figures work.
I overheard someone saying that if your wanting to fly from Perth to Sydney / Melbourne in an A320 you need ETOPS??????
Hence why 4 x Jetstar A320 have ETOPS.
i dunno guys someone help becuase all i am doing now is
Oh and Btw are 757's certifide to fly domestically in Australia
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: In a box, ready for shipping...
Posts: 717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The JQ A320's that fly AVV-PER take an inland track that avoids ETOPs requirements. Problem is, it consumes more fuel. I'll let someone else explain ETOPS requirements - I'm no expert and can't explain it properly.
AN's A320's flew a more direct track over the bight, consuming less fuel. Reason JQ doesn't follow the same track is that the Trans Tasman aircraft are the only ones fitted with life rafts. Normally, A320's would be fitted with slide-rafts, but the bean counters at JQ thought that too expensive.
So, instead, there are 7 life rafts scattered around the aircraft on Trans Tasman aircraft - meaning anytime there is an aircraft swap, the engineers have to lug 7 life rafts, beacons, safety cards, etc from one aircraft to the other, as opposed to having the aircraft fitted with sliderafts from the Airbus factory.
The short term savings made from not installing slide rafts have been outstripped by the long term expense of consuming more fuel on the AVV-PER route, in an environment where fuel costs are spiralling out of control (or so GD and co keep saying!)
AN's A320's flew a more direct track over the bight, consuming less fuel. Reason JQ doesn't follow the same track is that the Trans Tasman aircraft are the only ones fitted with life rafts. Normally, A320's would be fitted with slide-rafts, but the bean counters at JQ thought that too expensive.
So, instead, there are 7 life rafts scattered around the aircraft on Trans Tasman aircraft - meaning anytime there is an aircraft swap, the engineers have to lug 7 life rafts, beacons, safety cards, etc from one aircraft to the other, as opposed to having the aircraft fitted with sliderafts from the Airbus factory.
The short term savings made from not installing slide rafts have been outstripped by the long term expense of consuming more fuel on the AVV-PER route, in an environment where fuel costs are spiralling out of control (or so GD and co keep saying!)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: PPrune nominee 2011!
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lol think that explains it in a nutshell 
I'll think i might just stay in my seat here and work with figures for an aircraft leasing agency where we dont have to worry about ETOPS>
Thanks
I'll think i might just stay in my seat here and work with figures for an aircraft leasing agency where we dont have to worry about ETOPS>
Thanks
Grandpa Aerotart
Skystar 320 ETOPS is about being within a certain distance of a suitable place to land in an emergency. Lack of life rafts etc is an entirely different issue. ETOPS approvals are based around aircraft system redundancy.
It is based around single engine cruise speed and comes in varying time limits...60, 120 and 180 minutes typically.
Various airports may be adequate as defined in the company manuals...adequate would include runway long enough, wide enough and strong enough, ATC, Instrument Approach and Landing and Rescue Fire Fighting facilities available.
Weather makes an adequate airport suitable or not.
Basically you are either within 400 nm (don't know what an A320 SE cruise speed is...may be less than 400kts) of a suitable airport or you are ETOPS. If you get a chart for your intended route and draw 400nm rings around each adequate airport you will/may see gaps where the rings don't overlap.the point at which you exit a ring is your ETOPs entry point and the point at which you come within 400nm of the next Enroute Alternate is your ETOPs exit point.
ETOPs weather planning minima are higher than the actual minimas on the approach plates and at the planning stage an adequate aerodrome may not be suitable.
If your company has 120 minutes ETOPs approval you can be 120 minues/800nm from a suitable airports although the distance is the limiting factor so you may, in certain winds, be 127 minutes, at SE Cruise speed, from a suitable airport.
As an example flight planning DRW-BNE in the middle of the night Alice Springs and Tindal would probably not be adequate because no ATC/RFF. CNS, TVL and BNE would be suitable if the weather was better than ETOPS Planning Minima.
If the weather was below ETOPs planning minima at DRW, CNS and TVL you might not be able to depart legally.
Once you actually depart the ETOPS Planning Minima become irrelevant.
Hope that helps.
It is based around single engine cruise speed and comes in varying time limits...60, 120 and 180 minutes typically.
Various airports may be adequate as defined in the company manuals...adequate would include runway long enough, wide enough and strong enough, ATC, Instrument Approach and Landing and Rescue Fire Fighting facilities available.
Weather makes an adequate airport suitable or not.
Basically you are either within 400 nm (don't know what an A320 SE cruise speed is...may be less than 400kts) of a suitable airport or you are ETOPS. If you get a chart for your intended route and draw 400nm rings around each adequate airport you will/may see gaps where the rings don't overlap.the point at which you exit a ring is your ETOPs entry point and the point at which you come within 400nm of the next Enroute Alternate is your ETOPs exit point.
ETOPs weather planning minima are higher than the actual minimas on the approach plates and at the planning stage an adequate aerodrome may not be suitable.
If your company has 120 minutes ETOPs approval you can be 120 minues/800nm from a suitable airports although the distance is the limiting factor so you may, in certain winds, be 127 minutes, at SE Cruise speed, from a suitable airport.
As an example flight planning DRW-BNE in the middle of the night Alice Springs and Tindal would probably not be adequate because no ATC/RFF. CNS, TVL and BNE would be suitable if the weather was better than ETOPS Planning Minima.
If the weather was below ETOPs planning minima at DRW, CNS and TVL you might not be able to depart legally.
Once you actually depart the ETOPS Planning Minima become irrelevant.
Hope that helps.
Last edited by Chimbu chuckles; 9th Aug 2006 at 03:34.
ETOPS for beginners...
For twin-engined aircraft engaged in RPT, regulatory authorities mandate that more stringent safety margins must be applied because of the reduced redundancy inherent in two-vs-3+ engined aircraft.
Basically, ETOPS contingency planning becomes mandatory any time a twin exceeds 60 minutes flight time from a useable airport (in terms of runway, navaids and weather etc). Different aircraft may have different speeds/distances for that 60 minutes. This explains why up and down the east coast of Oz does not require ETOPS: MEL, CBR, SYD, NTL, OOL, BNE, Rocky etc are each within 60 minutes of the next and are usable by 737/A320-classs jets. It should be noted too that ETOPS is not only about engine failures and statistics, but also about maintenance systems and tracking of aircraft utilisation, reliability of electrical, pressurisation and hydraulic systems too, and extra-thorough preflight maintenance checking of onboard systems.
Where ETOPS is required, like SYD-PER, there is a segment of the route which will have to be flown outside 60 minutes of ADL & PER, especially if Kalgoorlie is 'closed'. So, if exceeding 60 minutes flight from a usable airport, twin-engined airliners MUST plan to be able to achieve a safe 'diversion' after an emergency from the worst possibe point (ie equal time/fuel from the 2 options is called a 'critical point'). That 'worst case' must consider the least favourable of a) depressurisation OR b) engine failure AND a depressurisation concurrently. (former wording too simplified hence edited in deference to Chimbu's more accurate detail)
Simple concept, much logic and science behind it, fairly cut-n-dried if it actually happens.
Hope that helps. (oops, I note Chimbu has beaten me to it, but another impression can't hurt can it?)
Basically, ETOPS contingency planning becomes mandatory any time a twin exceeds 60 minutes flight time from a useable airport (in terms of runway, navaids and weather etc). Different aircraft may have different speeds/distances for that 60 minutes. This explains why up and down the east coast of Oz does not require ETOPS: MEL, CBR, SYD, NTL, OOL, BNE, Rocky etc are each within 60 minutes of the next and are usable by 737/A320-classs jets. It should be noted too that ETOPS is not only about engine failures and statistics, but also about maintenance systems and tracking of aircraft utilisation, reliability of electrical, pressurisation and hydraulic systems too, and extra-thorough preflight maintenance checking of onboard systems.
Where ETOPS is required, like SYD-PER, there is a segment of the route which will have to be flown outside 60 minutes of ADL & PER, especially if Kalgoorlie is 'closed'. So, if exceeding 60 minutes flight from a usable airport, twin-engined airliners MUST plan to be able to achieve a safe 'diversion' after an emergency from the worst possibe point (ie equal time/fuel from the 2 options is called a 'critical point'). That 'worst case' must consider the least favourable of a) depressurisation OR b) engine failure AND a depressurisation concurrently. (former wording too simplified hence edited in deference to Chimbu's more accurate detail)
Simple concept, much logic and science behind it, fairly cut-n-dried if it actually happens.
Hope that helps.
(oops, I note Chimbu has beaten me to it, but another impression can't hurt can it?)
Last edited by Jetsbest; 9th Aug 2006 at 07:38.
2 engines running at 10000' uses crap loads more fuel than 1
although it wouldn't be pretty if the running one suddenly stopped...Don't want to worry about ETOPS? Fly 146s!
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
etops is not the issue.
water is.
the bight routes for AN had a liferaft route and non-liferaft route. etops is possible completely over land. i think the rule is 400nmfrom land requires liferafts.
not ordering sliderafts is yet another example of why beancounters should not run airlines, but should stick to counting beans, just as i should stick to what i do best.
water is.
the bight routes for AN had a liferaft route and non-liferaft route. etops is possible completely over land. i think the rule is 400nmfrom land requires liferafts.
not ordering sliderafts is yet another example of why beancounters should not run airlines, but should stick to counting beans, just as i should stick to what i do best.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Stuck in the middle...
Posts: 1,638
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Great Circle 60-min ETOPS map of AVV-PER.
This goes over the Bight so can't comment on Nullabor routings.
Isn't it the case that at certain times on PER flights the winds are such that a swing very south is required?
This goes over the Bight so can't comment on Nullabor routings.
Isn't it the case that at certain times on PER flights the winds are such that a swing very south is required?
PPRuNeaholic
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Cairns FNQ
Posts: 3,255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The "accelerated ETOPS" approval is now further accelerated, depending on the regulatory authority you're dealing with. It is now possible to get ETOPS approval, subject to all the standard checks and balances, to the maximum limit for which the aeroplane was originally designed.
While this won't specifically include old, existing twin jet aircraft (it was basically written around the 787, I think), many airlines will be able to apply for ETOPS in excess of 120 minutes (or 180 minutes, as applicable) and are likely to get it. The basic idea behind the change in accelerated ETOPS approval is that aeroplanes are now being built with a view to maximising ETOPS standards and criteria. It won't mean that the checking is any less stringent but would, for instance, allow a new start-up airline - using the appropriately certified aircraft types - to have ETOPS approval at 240 minutes, or more, without having had any previous ETOPS experience.
So there ya go. Maybe not a complete answer to the PER-SYD problem, but at least (perhaps) simplifying the equation.
While this won't specifically include old, existing twin jet aircraft (it was basically written around the 787, I think), many airlines will be able to apply for ETOPS in excess of 120 minutes (or 180 minutes, as applicable) and are likely to get it. The basic idea behind the change in accelerated ETOPS approval is that aeroplanes are now being built with a view to maximising ETOPS standards and criteria. It won't mean that the checking is any less stringent but would, for instance, allow a new start-up airline - using the appropriately certified aircraft types - to have ETOPS approval at 240 minutes, or more, without having had any previous ETOPS experience.
So there ya go. Maybe not a complete answer to the PER-SYD problem, but at least (perhaps) simplifying the equation.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: PPrune nominee 2011!
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by WalterMitty
etops is not the issue.
water is.
the bight routes for AN had a liferaft route and non-liferaft route. etops is possible completely over land. i think the rule is 400nmfrom land requires liferafts.
not ordering sliderafts is yet another example of why beancounters should not run airlines, but should stick to counting beans, just as i should stick to what i do best.
water is.
the bight routes for AN had a liferaft route and non-liferaft route. etops is possible completely over land. i think the rule is 400nmfrom land requires liferafts.
not ordering sliderafts is yet another example of why beancounters should not run airlines, but should stick to counting beans, just as i should stick to what i do best.
Anyway thanks for you help guys
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Am I reading this correctly? JQ ordered their A320s without the standard issue sliderafts? Uh huh. Each and everyone to their own I guess.
To be fair, as you would've guessed by the posts above ETOPs is a bit of a dog's breakfast Skystar, but in 25 words or less:
YES. You need ETOPs approval to operate twin-engine RPT to Perth because unfortunately Perth is a long way from anywhere.
YES. There is no reason why a 757 can't operate RPT in Australia (can we start some more rumours then?).
Liferafts have nothing to do with ETOPS (but sheesh, what an excellent decision by the procurement people at JQ - not!)
To be fair, as you would've guessed by the posts above ETOPs is a bit of a dog's breakfast Skystar, but in 25 words or less:
YES. You need ETOPs approval to operate twin-engine RPT to Perth because unfortunately Perth is a long way from anywhere.
YES. There is no reason why a 757 can't operate RPT in Australia (can we start some more rumours then?).
Liferafts have nothing to do with ETOPS (but sheesh, what an excellent decision by the procurement people at JQ - not!)
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JQ ordered their A320s without the standard issue sliderafts?
I once read a fantastic article explaining ETOPS very clearly in laymans terms. Will try and dig it up and post it on here.
