ANZ gets approved for 330 minute ETOPS
"IMNHO, 330/5.5 hour ETOPS is stretching the otherwise excellent idea a bit too far. "
Well, why is 330 minutes too far? Why was 300 minutes not too far? 180?
What would make it too far is neglecting to fully account for the failure modes and probabilities, mitigations, redundancies and so forth. If anything, the manufacturers and regulating authorities now have more certification experience and service history to go on than ever. With a properly computed aircraft performance, fuel load, plus the means to provide adequate electrical power for the required amount of time the airplane should be capable of reaching the planned diversion runway. The availability of the diversion runway, weather conditions and so forth are certainly challenges and the dispatcher must keep a wary and vigilant eye on them.
Well, why is 330 minutes too far? Why was 300 minutes not too far? 180?
What would make it too far is neglecting to fully account for the failure modes and probabilities, mitigations, redundancies and so forth. If anything, the manufacturers and regulating authorities now have more certification experience and service history to go on than ever. With a properly computed aircraft performance, fuel load, plus the means to provide adequate electrical power for the required amount of time the airplane should be capable of reaching the planned diversion runway. The availability of the diversion runway, weather conditions and so forth are certainly challenges and the dispatcher must keep a wary and vigilant eye on them.
When the 777, back in 2007, began to push the envelop of the ETOPS, I read somewhere (I don't want to to misquote) that executives of compagnies and regulating authorities need to consider how would they feel if in a flight, going single engine beyond 180 minutes, are members of their families flown by an average agency pilot in night and bad weather. I tried to quote as close as I remember it.
One can argue that such a personalization is not a good decision making tool but I think it has some merit.
One can argue that such a personalization is not a good decision making tool but I think it has some merit.
The bit I dont get is-longer ETOPS=more fire bottles.
Surley the two are completely unrelatede and their should be the same number of fire bottles on any aircraft flying an ETOPS critical track like Nz-Arnetina which is 90 plus percent over nothing . Does losing an engine increase the risk of fire does havign two engines not four and flying exactly the same tracks-the 4 engine plane in theory can fly on an even more remote track and therefore is more vulnerbale toa fire on board but no where to land situation.
Sure aircraft engines are incredibly reliable even compared with early generations of fan jets BUT 330 mins is too far for me I am afraid and will one day end in a lot of tears but for the airline execs the sums are
-lots of other airlines do it so its unlikely to be mind that crashes
-I wont be here very long so will have likely moved on if there is a crash
- As we have all heard many times there are lies damn lies and statistics and,
As we have all heard on here many times 'its when the holes in the cheese line up'
To my mind we are pushing things a bit too far with this one , putting too much faith in statistics and allowing too much tolerance to a critical component failure scenario creating a pretty big hole in the cheese and making alignment of others that bit easier.
PB
Surley the two are completely unrelatede and their should be the same number of fire bottles on any aircraft flying an ETOPS critical track like Nz-Arnetina which is 90 plus percent over nothing . Does losing an engine increase the risk of fire does havign two engines not four and flying exactly the same tracks-the 4 engine plane in theory can fly on an even more remote track and therefore is more vulnerbale toa fire on board but no where to land situation.
Sure aircraft engines are incredibly reliable even compared with early generations of fan jets BUT 330 mins is too far for me I am afraid and will one day end in a lot of tears but for the airline execs the sums are
-lots of other airlines do it so its unlikely to be mind that crashes
-I wont be here very long so will have likely moved on if there is a crash
- As we have all heard many times there are lies damn lies and statistics and,
As we have all heard on here many times 'its when the holes in the cheese line up'
To my mind we are pushing things a bit too far with this one , putting too much faith in statistics and allowing too much tolerance to a critical component failure scenario creating a pretty big hole in the cheese and making alignment of others that bit easier.
PB
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Ijatta
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cargo or cabin fire notwithstanding, I was never keen on the idea of having to descend into icing conditions for any length of time due to the loss of pressurization and/or an engine.
Paxing All Over The World
PAXboy
172driver
Ooops. Too hasty research on my part.
How many minutes ETOPS for me? Good question. As I travel less these days, I've not had to consider it directly but, I'd be thinking 120.
Which raises the key question: How do I find out how many minutes it will be? Coz the carrier sure as heck ain't gonna say!
Four donkeys did not help AF 447.
It only had two (AB 330).
How many minutes ETOPS for me? Good question. As I travel less these days, I've not had to consider it directly but, I'd be thinking 120.
Which raises the key question: How do I find out how many minutes it will be? Coz the carrier sure as heck ain't gonna say!
Almost all the operators use the least EDTO that the sector requires. Most Transpacific flights can be flown at 180 minutes. There are some areas that 180 minutes doesn't fit so some will be 207 minutes (old approval but still valid) or 240 minutes.
The Atlantic would be 120 minutes minimum, but can change to 180 minutes if, for example BIKF weather is below minimums and another pairing is required.
The EDTO maximums are just that, most flights will have ETP's that are less than 180/240/330 etc
I recently had a flight where our EDTO was planned at 180 minutes but due to the times in the alternate forecasts the flight 1 hour behind is had to operate a 240 EDTO flight. So there is not much point in asking about a flights "EDTO minutes" because they change and then the only ones that will know are the pilots and the dispatcher.
The Atlantic would be 120 minutes minimum, but can change to 180 minutes if, for example BIKF weather is below minimums and another pairing is required.
The EDTO maximums are just that, most flights will have ETP's that are less than 180/240/330 etc
I recently had a flight where our EDTO was planned at 180 minutes but due to the times in the alternate forecasts the flight 1 hour behind is had to operate a 240 EDTO flight. So there is not much point in asking about a flights "EDTO minutes" because they change and then the only ones that will know are the pilots and the dispatcher.
Last edited by c100driver; 17th Dec 2015 at 02:25. Reason: sentence structure
PAXboy,
Go to gcmap.com and enter your route like this: LAX-SYD and click Map.
Go to the bottom of the page and click on the ETOPS tab. Choose an ETOPS time and an aircraft type. Click Draw Map.
The no-go areas will be shown as dark blue. Here's the 180 min map:
and here is the 120 min map:
Go to gcmap.com and enter your route like this: LAX-SYD and click Map.
Go to the bottom of the page and click on the ETOPS tab. Choose an ETOPS time and an aircraft type. Click Draw Map.
The no-go areas will be shown as dark blue. Here's the 180 min map:
and here is the 120 min map:
..............that she had once survived a fatal plane crash therefore we were all safe a statistically, it was virtually impossible that she would be involved in another one!
Then there was the story of the Rabbi refusing to climb the aircraft boarding steps ( long time ago ) Eventually the Captain left the flight deck to talk to him, and said " Father, there is no reason not to fly, you of all people must know that when your number is up, your number is up, and there is nothing you can do about it " The Rabbi replied " My son, I'm not worried about my number coming up, I'm worried about YOUR number coming up".
330 mins ETOPS ? Never say Never, Murphy is always with us.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: oakland
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
330 mins ETOPS ? Never say Never, Murphy is always with us.
Which as SLF brings me on to a question? Do you get any sort of training in statistics or probability theory as a pilot?
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA
Age: 78
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have a problem with saying its the bean counters who dictate the lengthy ETOPS as in several cases it has taken one high fatality crash to take down an airline (TWA, Pan Am for example). What are the 4 engine options? A380 which has had its very near major fatal crash due to one engine failing and the B748. For my millions of miles of trans-Atlantic and trans-Pacific flights, I never felt less secure when the airlines I flew switched from 4 or 3 engine airlines to twins. But then again I am an engineer with a great deal of statistical experience. Today I would have more concern flying a B707 or DC-8 on any of those routes despite having half the engines. That is thanks to brilliant engineering advances.
Which as SLF brings me on to a question? Do you get any sort of training in statistics or probability theory as a pilot?
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Or-E-Gun, USA
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Super-Long ETOPS Permits
@PaxBoy, @172Driver, @GlobalNav, @India 4-2, et al.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts guys (gals?). If I may, I do believe that for a properly qualified and equipped airplane, some ETOPS time is appropriate. I am not smart enough to know the magic number, but I suggest that 60 minutes is not enough and that 330 minutes is far too high. Of this I am quite sure: when a high time ETOPS flight converts 450+ living souls into 450+ dead bodies, the ETOPS times are too high and they will come down. IIRC, @India 4-2 is the fellow that posted the great maps; (Thank you!!) I'm going back there for a more detailed look.
As wonderful as today's airplanes truly are, they are not perfect. Once in a while one of them will fall from the sky, not through pilot error - which can also happen, but due to some mechanical fault. If that airplane was sixty minutes closer to the 'nearest suitable runway,' would the crew and SLC survive? I do not know the correct answer. Do you?
The only item about which I am absolutely certain is that when a Big One falls while under ETOPS conditions, the allowed ETOPS times will come down.
Thanks for reading; more importantly, thank you for thinking!
Thanks for sharing your thoughts guys (gals?). If I may, I do believe that for a properly qualified and equipped airplane, some ETOPS time is appropriate. I am not smart enough to know the magic number, but I suggest that 60 minutes is not enough and that 330 minutes is far too high. Of this I am quite sure: when a high time ETOPS flight converts 450+ living souls into 450+ dead bodies, the ETOPS times are too high and they will come down. IIRC, @India 4-2 is the fellow that posted the great maps; (Thank you!!) I'm going back there for a more detailed look.
As wonderful as today's airplanes truly are, they are not perfect. Once in a while one of them will fall from the sky, not through pilot error - which can also happen, but due to some mechanical fault. If that airplane was sixty minutes closer to the 'nearest suitable runway,' would the crew and SLC survive? I do not know the correct answer. Do you?
The only item about which I am absolutely certain is that when a Big One falls while under ETOPS conditions, the allowed ETOPS times will come down.
Thanks for reading; more importantly, thank you for thinking!
Last edited by No Fly Zone; 23rd Dec 2015 at 08:14. Reason: Clarity
As a former air force transport crew member (C-141A) I share the emotional preference for four engines over two. Compared to WWII vintage transports, the C-141A had superb engines - power and reliability. I don't need five fingers to count the engine shutdowns I have experienced with thousands of flight hours in 22 years.
As an engineer, but not a propulsion expert, I know there is a large body of mandatory standards, measurement criteria and demonstrations required to determine ETOPS approval. Every time a new airplane or a new engine fit is evaluated on transport airplanes, the ETOPS process receives a great deal of attention, as it should. This system has proven itself I believe, and to the degree that it is faithfully followed, with the integrity and professionalism expected of test pilots and engineers, we can trust it for ETOPS 180 and even for ETOPS 330.
Human nature, being what we know it to be, can lead to shortcuts, deviations from process, pencil-whipping and the like. Just as hazardous for ETOPS 180, though, as it would be for ETOPS 330.
Once the airplane is certified and delivered, the operator (airline), its management, flight operations, maintenance, and so forth take on the responsibility for following a very strict set of mandated requirements. to the degree that those charged with these responsibilities carry them out responsibly, we can trust ETOPS, whether for 180 minutes for 330.
We know HOW, we know the technology and the engineering. It only remains to DO the job responsibly.
As an engineer, but not a propulsion expert, I know there is a large body of mandatory standards, measurement criteria and demonstrations required to determine ETOPS approval. Every time a new airplane or a new engine fit is evaluated on transport airplanes, the ETOPS process receives a great deal of attention, as it should. This system has proven itself I believe, and to the degree that it is faithfully followed, with the integrity and professionalism expected of test pilots and engineers, we can trust it for ETOPS 180 and even for ETOPS 330.
Human nature, being what we know it to be, can lead to shortcuts, deviations from process, pencil-whipping and the like. Just as hazardous for ETOPS 180, though, as it would be for ETOPS 330.
Once the airplane is certified and delivered, the operator (airline), its management, flight operations, maintenance, and so forth take on the responsibility for following a very strict set of mandated requirements. to the degree that those charged with these responsibilities carry them out responsibly, we can trust ETOPS, whether for 180 minutes for 330.
We know HOW, we know the technology and the engineering. It only remains to DO the job responsibly.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Potomac Heights
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Among the many things that the worriers miss is that the amount of time an ETOPS 330 plane is likely to be in an area beyond ETOPS 240 or 207 is small. Further, propulsion difficulties that are not common to all engines (e.g., running out of fuel) generally appear when engines are at high or changing loads (e.g., on takeoff or in climb, not in cruise).
Thus, the situation one must be worrying about for ETOPS 330 is one in which the plane has taken off and cruised for at least 4 hours (i.e., to get beyond ETOPS 240 range) -- and then has a problem.
While anything is, of course, possible, the statistics show this situation to be highly unlikely. And note further, you are still not in the soup. You have one remaining good engine that must also go bad before the sh__ really hits the fan.
In my younger years I flew B707s, DC8s, B747s, DC10s, L1011s and A340s all of the time. But the safety record of B757s, B767s, A330s and B777s trumps them all. I, for one, am a statistician and decision analyst, and have no concerns about ETOPS. I do have great concerns about the driving safety of cabby who picks me up at the airport, though. Those guys really are dangerous.
Thus, the situation one must be worrying about for ETOPS 330 is one in which the plane has taken off and cruised for at least 4 hours (i.e., to get beyond ETOPS 240 range) -- and then has a problem.
While anything is, of course, possible, the statistics show this situation to be highly unlikely. And note further, you are still not in the soup. You have one remaining good engine that must also go bad before the sh__ really hits the fan.
In my younger years I flew B707s, DC8s, B747s, DC10s, L1011s and A340s all of the time. But the safety record of B757s, B767s, A330s and B777s trumps them all. I, for one, am a statistician and decision analyst, and have no concerns about ETOPS. I do have great concerns about the driving safety of cabby who picks me up at the airport, though. Those guys really are dangerous.
