Airport RFFS 4 for a/c upto 180min EDTO approval
 

Dear all,

This is with reference to the FAA AC120-42B (Extended Operations (ETOPS & Polar Operations) dated 06/13/08

http://i65.tinypic.com/ri9oqd.jpg

As per the picture attached of the circular, any A/C who has got 180mins of ETOPS clearance can plan an alternate airport with RFFS 4.

Consider a B777 (RFFS CAT 9 as per ICAO) on a transatlantic/transpacific or on a critical route. It therefore can be given a 'suitable' alternate whose fire fighting capability is 4.

The questions -
Q1) is the above assumption correct ?

Q2) if yes, how will a Airport with RFFS CAT 4 can take care of a B777 as in this example which has diverted because of a fire?

Q3) what is the sanctity of an a/c RFFS requirement ? (when it can be allowed to divert to a airport where requirements are not being met)

Any info on the above or FAA mind-set in framing and giving such leverage is appreciated.

Any similar leverage given by JAA ?

Thankyou all.

I fly A330 In Asia and for ETOPS Altn we also need RFFS 4, whereas for normal ops it is RFFS 8.

Don't know the rationale behind this, but I guess it's a matter of practicality. In some remote areas of the world there's just no airports with higher category and keeping them equipped to CAT8/9 would just probably cost too much

Just as a side-note, in EASA-land the rule is not quite the same; AMC 20-6 Appx 4.8 "Diversion Decision Making" has a foot-note;

And that's it. RFFS Category is not mentioned in "APPENDIX 5 - ETOPS EN-ROUTE ALTERNATE AERODROMES", but then who expects logic in EASA documents. Like S 'n R, I suspect that the reason that CAT 4 is OK for an ETOPS diversion is that insisting on the normal CAT for the aircraft (eg 8 or 9) would deny ETOPS operations on many routes.

CAT 4 provides about 20% or less of the capability of CAT 8 or 9 (depending on how you measure it) and would be virtually useless for CAT 8 or 9 aircraft in the circumstances envisaged by regulators who require an RFFS to be present at all, but hey, let's not worry about that when insisting on adequate RFFS facilities would prevent ETOPS operations, which in themselves are little more than a psuedo-scientific statistical comfort blanket that ignores other uncomfortable, perhaps unquantifiable, realities. But that's another subject that we don't need to pull out yet again.

There is something I don't understand in the AC. Look at #2 where it says "ETOPS alternates with category 4. In addition, the airplane must remain within the ETOPS operation diversion time from an adequate airport that has RFFS equivalent to that specified by ICAO category 7 or higher."

So you have to have category 4 but also category 7.

Completely agree with you :)