Oceanic Long Haul - 2 or 4?
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: SE Asia
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engine Failures
I am sure that all crew and pax are nervous when an engine is shut down. Wherever that may happen. I suspect that the degree of nervousness can be directly related to (a) How far one is from the airport (b) How many engines the aircraft has. Personally I realise that I cannot totally eliminate risk from my life, and therefore happily cross any ocean on a twin. This does not mean I wouldn't be worried if an engine failure occurred of course, and truth be told more nervous if it was one of two. However on the same basis we could make all kinds of other rules to live our lives... how about three pilots instead of two in case two pilots fall sick? How about having 2000 feet vertical seperation instead of 1000 etc etc etc.
The fact of the matter is that ETOPS has been running for over a decade and has not caused a single crash. There are other factors CFIT, weather, that are more worrying and more deadly...in terms of numbers killed.
As well as the BA incident was there not a KLM 747 that lost all engines temporarily over the US, again because of volcanic dust? Interesting that both these incidents were four engined aircraft but probably co-incidental.
The fact of the matter is that ETOPS has been running for over a decade and has not caused a single crash. There are other factors CFIT, weather, that are more worrying and more deadly...in terms of numbers killed.
As well as the BA incident was there not a KLM 747 that lost all engines temporarily over the US, again because of volcanic dust? Interesting that both these incidents were four engined aircraft but probably co-incidental.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: australia
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
scud_runner and others. It seems there may be a little lack of understanding of the rules and concept of ETOPS.
The "ETOPS rule" to which you refer is a PLANNING rule. 90/120/180 (and later 207) minutes, is on 1 eng in still air. This is then worked as a distance which is promulgated in the relevant company documentation as a planning distance limit. Once underway, should you draw s hit as trumps, if you are on your ETOPS distance limit, you could well be more than the prescribed time getting to where you now want to go. This is legal.
I don't know of the incident to which you refer, but assuming their PLANNING was done within the applicable distance limit, then no "rule" was broken. Given the charting and documentation that we recieve for an ETOPS operation, it is unlikely that the aircraft was dispatched outside this distance limit.
My company has designated 1200nm for 777 on 180 minutes ETOPS. Given a headwind of (say) 80 knots this would take about 3:45 to get to the ETOPS alternate, in the worst case scenario. Perfectly legal.
As a point of interest, when testing the new 777ER, Boeing test pilots shut down one, somewhere over the Pacific, then ran for 5 hours until arriving at some god forsaken place.
To my colleagues and myself, who are into this stuff on a daily basis, the scarey factor is the cargo fire. Engines and systems on dedicated/purpose built ETOPS aircraft are designed and certified to higher standards of redundancy than those of past aircraft. Also, fortunately fire fighting and suppression have been vastly increased in these design requirements.
WRT to engines, consider this. It is generally accepted that start and takeoff are the two highest stress times for turbine engines. Given that by the very nature of the operation, the ETOPS aircraft will have significantly less cycles than will its short haul sister, should there be any inherent design or maintenance weakness, in a powerplant, it should, logically, show up earlier in the short haul sister.
The bottom line is: If you wish not to embrace the concept and new technology of ETOPS, then don't do it. There are plenty of guys around that have an open enough mind to learn and understand the way things are, and are prepared to ride the train while it passes you by.
TO
The "ETOPS rule" to which you refer is a PLANNING rule. 90/120/180 (and later 207) minutes, is on 1 eng in still air. This is then worked as a distance which is promulgated in the relevant company documentation as a planning distance limit. Once underway, should you draw s hit as trumps, if you are on your ETOPS distance limit, you could well be more than the prescribed time getting to where you now want to go. This is legal.
I don't know of the incident to which you refer, but assuming their PLANNING was done within the applicable distance limit, then no "rule" was broken. Given the charting and documentation that we recieve for an ETOPS operation, it is unlikely that the aircraft was dispatched outside this distance limit.
My company has designated 1200nm for 777 on 180 minutes ETOPS. Given a headwind of (say) 80 knots this would take about 3:45 to get to the ETOPS alternate, in the worst case scenario. Perfectly legal.
As a point of interest, when testing the new 777ER, Boeing test pilots shut down one, somewhere over the Pacific, then ran for 5 hours until arriving at some god forsaken place.
To my colleagues and myself, who are into this stuff on a daily basis, the scarey factor is the cargo fire. Engines and systems on dedicated/purpose built ETOPS aircraft are designed and certified to higher standards of redundancy than those of past aircraft. Also, fortunately fire fighting and suppression have been vastly increased in these design requirements.
WRT to engines, consider this. It is generally accepted that start and takeoff are the two highest stress times for turbine engines. Given that by the very nature of the operation, the ETOPS aircraft will have significantly less cycles than will its short haul sister, should there be any inherent design or maintenance weakness, in a powerplant, it should, logically, show up earlier in the short haul sister.
The bottom line is: If you wish not to embrace the concept and new technology of ETOPS, then don't do it. There are plenty of guys around that have an open enough mind to learn and understand the way things are, and are prepared to ride the train while it passes you by.
TO
Controversial, moi?
Bizflyer,
You may only travel on 4 engine aeroplanes but most passengers aren't even aware of what type of aircraft they are even on!
Out of interest if you booked a 747 to a destination and then, as often happens, a 777 substitution occurs what do you do?
NWSRG
Engines such as those fitted to the 777 are very much more fuel efficient than those fitted to the 747 but the maintenance costs of two engines versus four is also a large part of the equation. This makes the accountants argument for two engine aeroplanes over four unassailable.
If more people were like Bizflyer then ETOPS wouldn't exist and of course nobody would mind paying more for their tickets for the privilege!
You may only travel on 4 engine aeroplanes but most passengers aren't even aware of what type of aircraft they are even on!
Out of interest if you booked a 747 to a destination and then, as often happens, a 777 substitution occurs what do you do?
NWSRG
Engines such as those fitted to the 777 are very much more fuel efficient than those fitted to the 747 but the maintenance costs of two engines versus four is also a large part of the equation. This makes the accountants argument for two engine aeroplanes over four unassailable.
If more people were like Bizflyer then ETOPS wouldn't exist and of course nobody would mind paying more for their tickets for the privilege!
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From a non-pilot :
There's no diff. in the ticket price really ...
For example from Dublin it can be cheaper to hop to DUB-LHR-JFK and catch a BA 744, or sometimes it's cheaper A330 EI DUB->JFK
I haven't seen ticket prices carry a 4-engine supplement.
... Butting out
There's no diff. in the ticket price really ...
For example from Dublin it can be cheaper to hop to DUB-LHR-JFK and catch a BA 744, or sometimes it's cheaper A330 EI DUB->JFK
I haven't seen ticket prices carry a 4-engine supplement.
... Butting out
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the edge of madness
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now believe this or not as you want but Airbus (I assume the A340 dept) claim that total engine maintenance cost (temc) on the A340-300 is 10% less than temc on B777-200ER and that temc on an A340-600 is 12% less than that on B777-300ER. They also show fuel burns as being similar or less. Now I presume that Boeing would disagree as would, maybe, Airbus' A330 dept but it does show that the bald assumption that two engines are cheaper than four is not necessarily clear cut.
M.Mouse
Good question, it's never happened to me but I take your point and accept many don't know or care what they are bording. I guess being one of those people who do take a keen interest in which type of aircraft I'm flying on, the 'oh I've never flown on a 777!' novelty factor might overcome the 'oh no it's a twin', who knows? I'm not paranoid enough to balk at the gate because of a change of aircraft but that said I do book flights based on aircraft type.
For the record I wasn't trying to suggest that twin's are fundamentally unsafe, more that I have a personal preference regarding the number of engines. My comment is related to market forces than anything else. A number of posters seem to be forecasting the demise of the 4 engine due to economics, particularly across the Atlantic, I personally believe that whilst costs obviously play a huge - most would say the only - role, market forces also contribute, if this wasn't the case we'd never have heard of "4 engines for long haul" and it wouldn't have emblazoned the side of certain aircraft. I think when they painted that on they weren't trying to attract pilots but people like me?
Good question, it's never happened to me but I take your point and accept many don't know or care what they are bording. I guess being one of those people who do take a keen interest in which type of aircraft I'm flying on, the 'oh I've never flown on a 777!' novelty factor might overcome the 'oh no it's a twin', who knows? I'm not paranoid enough to balk at the gate because of a change of aircraft but that said I do book flights based on aircraft type.
For the record I wasn't trying to suggest that twin's are fundamentally unsafe, more that I have a personal preference regarding the number of engines. My comment is related to market forces than anything else. A number of posters seem to be forecasting the demise of the 4 engine due to economics, particularly across the Atlantic, I personally believe that whilst costs obviously play a huge - most would say the only - role, market forces also contribute, if this wasn't the case we'd never have heard of "4 engines for long haul" and it wouldn't have emblazoned the side of certain aircraft. I think when they painted that on they weren't trying to attract pilots but people like me?
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: 30 West
Age: 65
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To re iterate the old saying -
If you have 2 engines, it's only half the amount of stuff that can go wrong !
I have been operating East and West for nearly 10 years on 2 engines without ever considering that it may be even slightly more of a risk than with 3 or 4 engines.
I have also done the Air Transat scenario in real time in the simulator which was a very interesting 30 minutes. Believe me, when we touched down (on speed, on the runway markers ) both the F/O, the sim instructor and myself were maxxed out. An extremely valuable excercise.
If you have 2 engines, it's only half the amount of stuff that can go wrong !
I have been operating East and West for nearly 10 years on 2 engines without ever considering that it may be even slightly more of a risk than with 3 or 4 engines.
I have also done the Air Transat scenario in real time in the simulator which was a very interesting 30 minutes. Believe me, when we touched down (on speed, on the runway markers ) both the F/O, the sim instructor and myself were maxxed out. An extremely valuable excercise.
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well if we were to look at actual translantic accidents in the last decade. although twins are more than twice as prevelent as 3 and 4 engine aircraft across the atlantic, twice as many multi engine aircraft have crashed.
TWA 747, Swiss Air MD-11 and an egypt air 767.
and putting egypt air isn't fair because the pilot did it on purpose.
Furthermore another twin ran out of gas because of a fuel leak and just barely made it to the azores (bad procedure lead to the loss of the fuel, but the planning for a two engine crossing saved the day)
This points up the problems that are likely to splash an aircraft and none of them have anything to do with engines...
A twin heads across the water with EXTENSIVE planning for a diversion at every step of the way, including weather and winds for enroute diversions. Quads and trijets are not required to have the same level of planning or have nearby diversion airfields, so when something like a fire or fuel leak strikes onboard an aircraft precious seconds can be lost in the planning of the diversion which the twin already had planned.
As we can see it is FAR more likely that something other than an engine failure put the aircraft in actual jeapody and when fire breaks out seconds can matter. The ETOPS program forces more extensive planning for those contingencies.
Just because an airplane might be able to procede to a destination with an engine shut down, doesn't mean that it wouldnt be far better to have a series of diversion airfields along the way. I will trade the extra engines for the extra runways every day of the week.
Cheers
Wino
PS I will let you in a dirty little secret of pilots (I have done dozens of transatlantic flights in command of 2 and 3 engine aircraft) generally 4 engines pay more than 2 engines hence the extensive lobbying by pilots for their airlines to buy 4 engine aircraft.
ad far as distant rumble goes, the MARKET sets the prices. The efficiency of the operation determines the PROFIT the airline makes, and I guarantee a twin is cheaper over the same route.... Hence more profit all other things being equal.
TWA 747, Swiss Air MD-11 and an egypt air 767.
and putting egypt air isn't fair because the pilot did it on purpose.
Furthermore another twin ran out of gas because of a fuel leak and just barely made it to the azores (bad procedure lead to the loss of the fuel, but the planning for a two engine crossing saved the day)
This points up the problems that are likely to splash an aircraft and none of them have anything to do with engines...
A twin heads across the water with EXTENSIVE planning for a diversion at every step of the way, including weather and winds for enroute diversions. Quads and trijets are not required to have the same level of planning or have nearby diversion airfields, so when something like a fire or fuel leak strikes onboard an aircraft precious seconds can be lost in the planning of the diversion which the twin already had planned.
As we can see it is FAR more likely that something other than an engine failure put the aircraft in actual jeapody and when fire breaks out seconds can matter. The ETOPS program forces more extensive planning for those contingencies.
Just because an airplane might be able to procede to a destination with an engine shut down, doesn't mean that it wouldnt be far better to have a series of diversion airfields along the way. I will trade the extra engines for the extra runways every day of the week.
Cheers
Wino
PS I will let you in a dirty little secret of pilots (I have done dozens of transatlantic flights in command of 2 and 3 engine aircraft) generally 4 engines pay more than 2 engines hence the extensive lobbying by pilots for their airlines to buy 4 engine aircraft.
ad far as distant rumble goes, the MARKET sets the prices. The efficiency of the operation determines the PROFIT the airline makes, and I guarantee a twin is cheaper over the same route.... Hence more profit all other things being equal.
Controversial, moi?
......market forces also contribute, if this wasn't the case we'd never have heard of "4 engines for long haul" and it wouldn't have emblazoned the side of certain aircraft. I think when they painted that on they weren't trying to attract pilots but people like me?
I believe you are correct, it was another of the RBs rather tacky(in my opinion) attempts to undermine BA.
I would be interested to know if many people understand or care what they were flying on as long as the price is right.
It will also be interesting, if the rumours are correct, when RB starts operating 777s!
M. Mouse
All points accepted. For the record two things I've never done, 777 or Virgin (Atlantic), maybe I should accept the inevitable and give both a go, but I still prefer the thought of 4 tins banging around in the breeze rather than two. I'd also divert your attention to another thread which is discussing 2 failures on etops flights for the same airline. Still think I know where I'd rather be.
All points accepted. For the record two things I've never done, 777 or Virgin (Atlantic), maybe I should accept the inevitable and give both a go, but I still prefer the thought of 4 tins banging around in the breeze rather than two. I'd also divert your attention to another thread which is discussing 2 failures on etops flights for the same airline. Still think I know where I'd rather be.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
......market forces also contribute, if this wasn't the case we'd never have heard of "4 engines for long haul" and it wouldn't have emblazoned the side of certain aircraft. I think when they painted that on they weren't trying to attract pilots but people like me?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bizflyer
I believe you are correct, it was another of the RBs rather tacky(in my opinion) attempts to undermine BA.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
......market forces also contribute, if this wasn't the case we'd never have heard of "4 engines for long haul" and it wouldn't have emblazoned the side of certain aircraft. I think when they painted that on they weren't trying to attract pilots but people like me?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bizflyer
I believe you are correct, it was another of the RBs rather tacky(in my opinion) attempts to undermine BA.
Having said that, 4 for me every time!
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: la
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi all!
I have been on twins for a VERY long time. Operated a/c on 2 and 3 hour etops, over rather wide ponds, with closest airport at some 1300nm. But never felt unsafe or ill at ease. The planning is more rigurous than 3/4 engined a/c, and that's a fact! To the best of my knowledge, until now, there has been no ETOPS related (ie loss of engine or critical system whilst being in the ETOPS area of operations, ie more than 1 hour single engine speed from a suitable airfield for the a/c type) loss of hull, be it on narrow or wide body transport category airplanes. The 2 incidents (presumably the Royal Brunai 757 and 767) might have been ETOPS flights, but I understand that one had a problem at TOC... Even with 4 engines, unless doing a very short hop like CDG-LHR, you would turn back anyway. Flap problem: same thing. YOu would not go anywhere far unless for a short hop with loads of fuel, even on 10 engines!
So, one should differentiate between ETOPS planned and dispatched flight that had a problem after t/off v/s ETOPS related incident, ie when the a/c was in the ETOPS area of operations. It is tobe pointed out, though, any inflight engine shutdown adversly affects the airframe-engine combination ETOPS certification, not just for that carrier but potentialy around the world! (Hence, as long as it is possible, some companies reuest their crew to avoid shuttig down the engine inflight, just leave it at idle as long as it doesn't surge/stall/overheat/burn/vibrate excesiively etc) CX, Thai, EK had to review their ETOPS operations due to engine problems on their repsective 777/330 fleets a while back. But once these problems have been put out of the way, ETOPS is very safe. Hence, for ETOPS dispatch, you require adequate airports+more stringent WX criteria (higher minima than normal all Wx operations) within 2 or 3 hrs single-eng speed. On top of that, the fuel planning at dispatch takes into consideration the critical fuel scenario, ie engine failure combined with explosive decompression: hence you are expected to get to the enroute ETOPS airport within 2/3 hours, on 1 eng flying at 10,000' with the actual winds of the day. Now, that is a fair bit of fuel penalty which has to be sometimes carried. Such stringent requirements do not cover 3/4 eng a/c. Hence, loss of 1 engine+depressurisation at the critical point between the nearest airports is not catered for in 3/4 eng operations (except maybe 1 or 2 operators around the world, noone plans that critical fuel scenario on 3/4 engines) - Air Transat 330 incident indeed proved a point that day: a 3/4 engined a/c would not have made it given the same cicumstances.
As to one of the fire scenarios: getting 2 or 3 hrs ETOPS approval requires a cargo hold fire supression time equivalent to the approved ETOPS diversion time+15minutes. Hence, for a 2 hour ETOPS approved a/c, the cargo hold fire suppression would be of 2hrs+15 mins = 135mins. It is 195mins for 3 hour ETOPS approval. Such is not the case with 3/4 engines when you are not guaranteed to have adequate cargo hold fire supression which would "cover" you whilst you are flying to an enroute alternate.
Hence, ETOPS is as safe if not nmaybe safer than 3/4 engine flights, assuming, of course that any ETOPs operated twin has the a/c certification, operator authorisation, adequate ETOPS flight planning and dispatch, special ETOPS training for pilots and engineers, and good good trend monitoring by engineering.
As to the economics, maybe the newer 4 engined a/c are cheaper to operate than twins, then maybe not. That's for company A and company B to prove... Funny that company A started only with twins and now tries to sell the 340 for its 4 engines, whilst company B started with 4 engine a/c for long haul (707 and 747) and now is pushing the largest ever twin forward for LR operations.
The solution to long haul over hostile areas (be it land or water) lies now with the LROPs study group (as in Long Range Operations) which would cover any long haul a/c, irrespective of engine numbers, to satisfy cargo hold fire suppression, critical fuel case scenarios etc... Now, that is the way forward! THAT would make me feel safer, not simply counting the number of dongs under those wings!
I have been on twins for a VERY long time. Operated a/c on 2 and 3 hour etops, over rather wide ponds, with closest airport at some 1300nm. But never felt unsafe or ill at ease. The planning is more rigurous than 3/4 engined a/c, and that's a fact! To the best of my knowledge, until now, there has been no ETOPS related (ie loss of engine or critical system whilst being in the ETOPS area of operations, ie more than 1 hour single engine speed from a suitable airfield for the a/c type) loss of hull, be it on narrow or wide body transport category airplanes. The 2 incidents (presumably the Royal Brunai 757 and 767) might have been ETOPS flights, but I understand that one had a problem at TOC... Even with 4 engines, unless doing a very short hop like CDG-LHR, you would turn back anyway. Flap problem: same thing. YOu would not go anywhere far unless for a short hop with loads of fuel, even on 10 engines!
So, one should differentiate between ETOPS planned and dispatched flight that had a problem after t/off v/s ETOPS related incident, ie when the a/c was in the ETOPS area of operations. It is tobe pointed out, though, any inflight engine shutdown adversly affects the airframe-engine combination ETOPS certification, not just for that carrier but potentialy around the world! (Hence, as long as it is possible, some companies reuest their crew to avoid shuttig down the engine inflight, just leave it at idle as long as it doesn't surge/stall/overheat/burn/vibrate excesiively etc) CX, Thai, EK had to review their ETOPS operations due to engine problems on their repsective 777/330 fleets a while back. But once these problems have been put out of the way, ETOPS is very safe. Hence, for ETOPS dispatch, you require adequate airports+more stringent WX criteria (higher minima than normal all Wx operations) within 2 or 3 hrs single-eng speed. On top of that, the fuel planning at dispatch takes into consideration the critical fuel scenario, ie engine failure combined with explosive decompression: hence you are expected to get to the enroute ETOPS airport within 2/3 hours, on 1 eng flying at 10,000' with the actual winds of the day. Now, that is a fair bit of fuel penalty which has to be sometimes carried. Such stringent requirements do not cover 3/4 eng a/c. Hence, loss of 1 engine+depressurisation at the critical point between the nearest airports is not catered for in 3/4 eng operations (except maybe 1 or 2 operators around the world, noone plans that critical fuel scenario on 3/4 engines) - Air Transat 330 incident indeed proved a point that day: a 3/4 engined a/c would not have made it given the same cicumstances.
As to one of the fire scenarios: getting 2 or 3 hrs ETOPS approval requires a cargo hold fire supression time equivalent to the approved ETOPS diversion time+15minutes. Hence, for a 2 hour ETOPS approved a/c, the cargo hold fire suppression would be of 2hrs+15 mins = 135mins. It is 195mins for 3 hour ETOPS approval. Such is not the case with 3/4 engines when you are not guaranteed to have adequate cargo hold fire supression which would "cover" you whilst you are flying to an enroute alternate.
Hence, ETOPS is as safe if not nmaybe safer than 3/4 engine flights, assuming, of course that any ETOPs operated twin has the a/c certification, operator authorisation, adequate ETOPS flight planning and dispatch, special ETOPS training for pilots and engineers, and good good trend monitoring by engineering.
As to the economics, maybe the newer 4 engined a/c are cheaper to operate than twins, then maybe not. That's for company A and company B to prove... Funny that company A started only with twins and now tries to sell the 340 for its 4 engines, whilst company B started with 4 engine a/c for long haul (707 and 747) and now is pushing the largest ever twin forward for LR operations.
The solution to long haul over hostile areas (be it land or water) lies now with the LROPs study group (as in Long Range Operations) which would cover any long haul a/c, irrespective of engine numbers, to satisfy cargo hold fire suppression, critical fuel case scenarios etc... Now, that is the way forward! THAT would make me feel safer, not simply counting the number of dongs under those wings!
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,852
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speaking of which...
http://www.airbus.com/dynamic/media/press_releases.asp
AIRBUS RECEIVES 180 MINUTE ETOPS APPROVAL FOR A320 FAMILY AIRCRAFT
APRIL 28, 2004
Leading aircraft manufacturer Airbus has received approval for 180-minute extended range twin-engine operations (ETOPS) with its A319, A320 and A321 single-aisle aircraft, including its corporate jet versions.
The approval was granted by the new European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). Airbus is also in the process of obtaining approval for the latest family member, the A318. This means that, other than some of its very early aircraft, all twin-engine Airbus aircraft will be approved for ETOPS operations up to 180 minutes.
For around 20 years, ETOPS regulations have governed the design and operation of twin-engine aircraft that are flying routes with a trajectory point that is further than 60 minutes away from an adequate airport when flying on a single-engine. Over the years - due to demonstrated systems and engine reliability - the maximum diversion time that can now be granted to an aircraft type has been increased up to 180 minutes.
Airbus, as a manufacturer of the most cost efficient twin-engine aircraft, has been a driving force in promoting ETOPS approvals and operations for twin-engine aircraft. Its first approval for ETOPS was obtained in 1986, soon after original ETOPS regulations came into force. Airbus, which was the first aircraft manufacturer to have a fly-by-wire aircraft ETOPS certified, as well as being the first to introduce ETOPS requirements into its entire product line, has also established methods for accelerated-ETOPS approval. These are used to achieve ETOPS approval from day-one of entry into service.
Its recent approval recognises the significant in-service experience gathered by the A320 Family and the excellent reliability of the CFM and IAE engines. The A320 Family has now accumulated over 31 million flight hours since entry into service and more than ten years worth of 120-minute ETOPS operations worldwide. Currently there are around ten ETOPS approved Airbus A320 Family operators, a figure which excludes A319 ACJ operators.
The leading aircraft manufacturer with the most modern and comprehensive product line on the market, Airbus is a global company with design and manufacturing facilities in France, Germany, the UK and Spain as well as subsidiaries in the US, China and Japan. Headquartered in Toulouse, France, Airbus is an EADS joint company with BAE Systems.
AIRBUS RECEIVES 180 MINUTE ETOPS APPROVAL FOR A320 FAMILY AIRCRAFT
APRIL 28, 2004
Leading aircraft manufacturer Airbus has received approval for 180-minute extended range twin-engine operations (ETOPS) with its A319, A320 and A321 single-aisle aircraft, including its corporate jet versions.
The approval was granted by the new European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). Airbus is also in the process of obtaining approval for the latest family member, the A318. This means that, other than some of its very early aircraft, all twin-engine Airbus aircraft will be approved for ETOPS operations up to 180 minutes.
For around 20 years, ETOPS regulations have governed the design and operation of twin-engine aircraft that are flying routes with a trajectory point that is further than 60 minutes away from an adequate airport when flying on a single-engine. Over the years - due to demonstrated systems and engine reliability - the maximum diversion time that can now be granted to an aircraft type has been increased up to 180 minutes.
Airbus, as a manufacturer of the most cost efficient twin-engine aircraft, has been a driving force in promoting ETOPS approvals and operations for twin-engine aircraft. Its first approval for ETOPS was obtained in 1986, soon after original ETOPS regulations came into force. Airbus, which was the first aircraft manufacturer to have a fly-by-wire aircraft ETOPS certified, as well as being the first to introduce ETOPS requirements into its entire product line, has also established methods for accelerated-ETOPS approval. These are used to achieve ETOPS approval from day-one of entry into service.
Its recent approval recognises the significant in-service experience gathered by the A320 Family and the excellent reliability of the CFM and IAE engines. The A320 Family has now accumulated over 31 million flight hours since entry into service and more than ten years worth of 120-minute ETOPS operations worldwide. Currently there are around ten ETOPS approved Airbus A320 Family operators, a figure which excludes A319 ACJ operators.
The leading aircraft manufacturer with the most modern and comprehensive product line on the market, Airbus is a global company with design and manufacturing facilities in France, Germany, the UK and Spain as well as subsidiaries in the US, China and Japan. Headquartered in Toulouse, France, Airbus is an EADS joint company with BAE Systems.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed it was, HotDog...you have a very good memory.
NWA departing from HND enroute HNL.
Astro/pressure pattern navigation used, but if you are in the clag at 21,000, not many star shots possible.
The high range radio altimeter would still work of course, but then you are left with only LORAN A...and the 500mb chart you departed with.
Have personally used LORAN on the Pacific, very good coverage was possible ex-HNL eastbound, but next to nil elsewhere.
Pressure pattern nav worked good, provided it was updated with astro or Doppler, unfortunately Doppler was not fitted to many aircraft at the time.
The particular NWA Stratocruiser was well off course, by at least 500 miles.
Not good...
NWA departing from HND enroute HNL.
Astro/pressure pattern navigation used, but if you are in the clag at 21,000, not many star shots possible.
The high range radio altimeter would still work of course, but then you are left with only LORAN A...and the 500mb chart you departed with.
Have personally used LORAN on the Pacific, very good coverage was possible ex-HNL eastbound, but next to nil elsewhere.
Pressure pattern nav worked good, provided it was updated with astro or Doppler, unfortunately Doppler was not fitted to many aircraft at the time.
The particular NWA Stratocruiser was well off course, by at least 500 miles.
Not good...