What if ETOPS was abolished.....
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Near sheep!
Posts: 915
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What if ETOPS was abolished.....
An interesting cultural question I think.
What do you think airlines would do? Fly straight across the pond in twins?
All hypothetical of course........
What do you think airlines would do? Fly straight across the pond in twins?
All hypothetical of course........
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: GPS L INVALID
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Every operator that really wants to already does (well, not straight across obviously, but ETOPS is rarely to blame for that)... By getting an appropriate ETOPS certification! What's your point?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Near sheep!
Posts: 915
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If thats the case, ETOPS had just as well be abolished today then.
My point was, if the decision to operate a certain distance within suitable airfields was solely at the discretion of the airlines, what do you think they would do.
My point was, if the decision to operate a certain distance within suitable airfields was solely at the discretion of the airlines, what do you think they would do.
ETOPS as a name doesn't exist now for quite a lot of states. ( at least in HK, HKCAD follows ICAO )
It's called EDTO
Extended Diversion Time Operations
There are now rules for 4 Eng A/C as well.
Extended Diversion Time Operations (EDTO) The following flights are considered EDTO flights:
• operations of a twin engined aircraft conducted over a route that contains a point further than 60 minutes flying time in still air, at the specified one engine inoperative cruising speed, from an adequate airport
• operations in a four engined aircraft conducted over a route that contains a point further than 180 minutes flying time in still air, at the specified all engine operative cruising speed, from an adequate airport.
It's called EDTO
Extended Diversion Time Operations
There are now rules for 4 Eng A/C as well.
Extended Diversion Time Operations (EDTO) The following flights are considered EDTO flights:
• operations of a twin engined aircraft conducted over a route that contains a point further than 60 minutes flying time in still air, at the specified one engine inoperative cruising speed, from an adequate airport
• operations in a four engined aircraft conducted over a route that contains a point further than 180 minutes flying time in still air, at the specified all engine operative cruising speed, from an adequate airport.
short flights long nights
That's intersting, my company is operating at 207 minutes for 2 engine aircraft.
ETOPs 207 minutes is just a 15% extension of 180 minutes and was because USA to Japan was just outside the 180 minute range. B777 300ER is currently capable/approved out to 240 minutes (depending on the AIMS update and increased fire suppression capability). A small number of Airlines are already operating the B777 at 240. A few coming modifications to the B777 should see the ultimate approval out to 330 minutes.
ETOPs was a simplistic approach based of number of engines fitted and proven reliability.
EDTO is more about the whole operation of aircraft beyond an alternate airport, with fire suppression, main systems (electrical, hydraulic, pneumatic etc) redundancy and reliability plus fuel planning requirement, so it also picks up tri's and quads.
ETOPs was a simplistic approach based of number of engines fitted and proven reliability.
EDTO is more about the whole operation of aircraft beyond an alternate airport, with fire suppression, main systems (electrical, hydraulic, pneumatic etc) redundancy and reliability plus fuel planning requirement, so it also picks up tri's and quads.
Last edited by c100driver; 21st Jan 2015 at 20:24. Reason: more background
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ETOPs was a simplistic approach based of number of engines fitted and proven reliability.
The event in the case of ETOPS being a second engine failure in a 2-engine aircraft, except in circumstances where additional engines would have made no difference, eg running out of fuel.
I don't have that blind faith as a result of bitter experience of the perverse nature of machines, so I won't fly in a twin-engine public transport aircraft on a sector that relies on that blind faith.
The problem is that the second engine failure, if it happens, may well be the consequence of mis-management, aka finger trouble, perhaps as a result of the stress of the first engine failure and prospect of 180 minutes single-engine flight over water, and the failure statistics do not take human fallibility into account.
Sod's Law tells us, doesn't it, that the first engine failure may well happen just when things are getting tricky for entirely unconnected reasons; weather, maybe, diversion closure, Captain has a heart attack, whatever.
But then, what do I know. Modern materials, engineering, designs, electronics; sudden failures are a thing of the past. Just because things went wrong in the past for entirely unforeseen reasons, doesn't mean that they'll do so in the future.
Doesn't it?
Last edited by Capot; 22nd Jan 2015 at 11:41.
A few coming modifications to the B777 should see the ultimate approval out to 330 minutes.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Going back to the "blind faith", I have always been puzzled by the logic of saying that engines and systems are so reliable and therefore a second engine failure is so unlikely that we'll allow people to fly over water and far from a safe-ish place to land, and then adding that the confidence that there won't be a second failure lasts precisely 180 minutes (or some other fairly arbitrary figure) so it's OK, boys, just so long as you get your asses back on the ground within 180 minutes.
Why does the risk of a second engine failure suddenly increase after 180 minutes, or whatever the figure might be? Statistically, that second failure is as likely to happen 68 minutes after the first failure as it is 374 minutes after the first failure (ignoring things such as fuel quantity and consumption).
ETOPS makes very little sense to me, apart from ensuring that certain useful bits of equipment are working properly, which is always a good idea that could probably be applied to all flights.
Why does the risk of a second engine failure suddenly increase after 180 minutes, or whatever the figure might be? Statistically, that second failure is as likely to happen 68 minutes after the first failure as it is 374 minutes after the first failure (ignoring things such as fuel quantity and consumption).
ETOPS makes very little sense to me, apart from ensuring that certain useful bits of equipment are working properly, which is always a good idea that could probably be applied to all flights.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Near sheep!
Posts: 915
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its an interesting debate then between safety and profit.
I honestly think that if ETOPS was abolished tomorrow, we would see twins many hours away from a suitable diversion..........
I honestly think that if ETOPS was abolished tomorrow, we would see twins many hours away from a suitable diversion..........
