etops 180mins 1200nm exceeded
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: here
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
etops 180mins 1200nm exceeded
A question for those of you operating long range etops flights,
are you happy to exceed the certified 180mins diversion etops rule time provided that the distance is under 1200nm from a suitable airport?
The reason for exceeding rule time is normally due to the wind component increasing the flight time over the given distance..
are you happy to exceed the certified 180mins diversion etops rule time provided that the distance is under 1200nm from a suitable airport?
The reason for exceeding rule time is normally due to the wind component increasing the flight time over the given distance..
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Middle England
Posts: 611
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not a question of whether I'm happy or not. The rules allow me to fly 180 minutes from a suitable diversion at the engine out speed (400 TAS for the 767-300) still air. You are correct that when the wind "on the day" is taken into account, you could be more than 180 mins from your suitable airfield. If it's legal, why would I not want to do it? My competitors would.........
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: ME
Posts: 5,502
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Frosty Hoar
It also depends on the logic used for your flight plans. In our case the 120mins equals 840nms, however the CFP immediately drops the aircraft from cruise altitude to FL100 at the ETP, the calculation is there based upon 375KTAS, which in turn will give you a greater time than 120min even with NIL wind.
So basically the time can be exceeded but you may not operate outside your defined area of operation.
Mutt.
It also depends on the logic used for your flight plans. In our case the 120mins equals 840nms, however the CFP immediately drops the aircraft from cruise altitude to FL100 at the ETP, the calculation is there based upon 375KTAS, which in turn will give you a greater time than 120min even with NIL wind.
So basically the time can be exceeded but you may not operate outside your defined area of operation.
Mutt.
With MY reputation?
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Not fussed, as long as it's "Child Friendly"
Age: 52
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's not forget the United Airlines 777 last year that flew an estimated 192-minute ETOPS diversion over the Southern Pacific last year - The rationale behind this was that it was better to push on that little bit further to an airfield with all required facilities rather than make do for the sake of a few minutes less single-engined flying. (I think this is kind of missing the point of the 180-minute rule being there in the first place, but at the same time the pilot's thinking makes sense).
Anyone know what the FAA's thoughts on this incident were?
Just my views on this subject...
PHX
Anyone know what the FAA's thoughts on this incident were?
Just my views on this subject...
PHX
Let's not forget the United Airlines 777 last year that flew an estimated 192-minute ETOPS diversion over the Southern Pacific last year - The rationale behind this was that it was better to push on that little bit further to an airfield with all required facilities rather than make do for the sake of a few minutes less single-engined flying. (I think this is kind of missing the point of the 180-minute rule being there in the first place, but at the same time the pilot's thinking makes sense).
Anyone know what the FAA's thoughts on this incident were?
Just my views on this subject...
Anyone know what the FAA's thoughts on this incident were?
Just my views on this subject...
If one assumes that at no time in the flight was the plane ever beyond 180 mins from a suitable, isn't it a judgement call of what the safer course is?
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It’s not a question of judgement or applying any kind of ”rationale” to “push on a bit”. Mutt and 763 Jock have explained the rules. The trip is planned on the ground, pre-flight, using still air and typical single-engined speeds for the aircraft type. It is accepted by the operators and the regulatory authorities that if an engine failure happens at the furthest distance between two suitable airfields, the reality is that there probably will be a wind component and the aircraft’s cruise speed may be a bit different from the one used at the planning stage. So if 60, 120, 180 or 207 minutes are exceeded, no rules have been broken and nothing is less safe.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: USA
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UA 777 ETOPS diversion time was.....
actually 177 minutes, from engine failure to touchdown in Kona. Not that it makes any difference! Why bother having numeric limits any more?
Am I happier (pucker factor reduction discernable) flying for 179 minutes on one engine than 181?!
Am I happier (pucker factor reduction discernable) flying for 179 minutes on one engine than 181?!
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: here
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to clarify we are using wind component calculations at the planning stage,giving a more accurate idea of diversion time,this begs the question why bother with diversion times if they can be exceeded, and instead use only distance limitations to certify the aircraft?
