USA to drop ETOPS restrictions for qualified aircraft
|
To obtain approvals, an aircraft will need fire suppression systems sized for the requested time-to-alternate duration and adequate emergency oxygen supplies for the crew and the passengers. The aircraft will also have to carry automated external defibrillators. Otherwise, the same weather reporting, training and diversion accommodation requirements as currently required will apply. FAA administrator Marion Blakey says the new rule will also boost aviation safety as it requires tri- and quad-engine aircraft - those for which there are currently no ETOPS rules - to meet the same standards as the twin-engine planes for flights over the poles or farther than 180min from an alternate airport. Extended TWIN Operations Tri and quad aircraft already take fuel and oxygen supplies into account so what's the difference? Are they going to make a quad land at the nearest suitable airport following an engine shut down? |
Originally Posted by Basil
(Post 3058583)
Tri and quad aircraft already take fuel and oxygen supplies into account so what's the difference?
Are they going to make a quad land at the nearest suitable airport following an engine shut down? |
And this from the same administration that got it's knickers in a twist over a 744 flying 3 engines across the pond?
Is it any wonder that aviation administrations the world over get so little respect from professionals? Someone should point out to them that they cannot have their cake and eat it too.:ugh: |
Originally Posted by Chimbu chuckles
(Post 3058658)
And this from the same administration that got it's knickers in a twist over a 744 flying 3 engines across the pond?
Is it any wonder that aviation administrations the world over get so little respect from professionals? Someone should point out to them that they cannot have their cake and eat it too.:ugh: FAA does not control the civil aviation authorities of Europe, or United Arab Emirates et cetera. |
You really think EK won't be making use of this...or BA,CX, QF, SQ,....etc
|
Originally Posted by Chimbu chuckles
(Post 3058797)
You really think EK won't be making use of this...
If they fly as Emirates airline, they have to abide by Emirates civil aviation regulations. JAA, for one, has refused to grant the 207 min ETOPS. |
Originally Posted by Basil
(Post 3058583)
Extended TWIN Operations
Tri and quad aircraft already take fuel and oxygen supplies into account so what's the difference? |
Two-engine extended operations increased worldwide from fewer than 1,000 per month in 1985 to more than 1,000 per day in 2004. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Meanwhile, extended operations engine reliability has improved to the point that engine shutdowns occur less than half as often as they did in the 1980s. |
Perhaps we should be referring to EROPS. It matters not how many engines you have,if it's a hold,or cabin fire.
Was'nt the last controlled ditching in the North Atlantic a four engined aircraft? (Over to the history buffs.);) |
In my opinion, coming soon a country near you: single pilot ETOPS certification.
Remember the F/E? Gone. F/O? Costs too much apparently. :ouch: |
Originally Posted by dash6
(Post 3059916)
Was'nt the last controlled ditching in the North Atlantic a four engined aircraft? (Over to the history buffs.)
Last controlled ditching worldwide was probably the Ethiopian 767. |
Originally Posted by WHBM
(Post 3060294)
Yes, and it was also a prop.
Last controlled ditching worldwide was probably the Ethiopian 767. The last controlled ditching was the RAF Nimrod. |
Originally Posted by Lucifer
(Post 3060426)
The last controlled ditching was the RAF Nimrod.
And that had four engines too! :O :O |
I just read this over at FI's site. This is quite a change isn't it? Assuming it's purely based on the reliability statistics convincing the FAA that the time restriction is no longer necessary, why haven't the JAA considered it?
|
Non-aviation person speaking.
JamesT73J Assuming it's purely based on the reliability statistics convincing the FAA ... That said, the risks are fairly well documented and each carrier (and pax if they choose) can consider them. It is likely that it will still be more risky to drive to the airport. That said, I am old fashioned and, when selecting my UK~USA flight for this afternoon, one issue I checked was which a/c was planned to operate the sector and how many of those big silver drums does it have? The answer is four but, as I say, I am old fashioned. Eerrr, that means I am old. :sad: |
If this change only applies to US carriers then will that give them an operating advantage over European carriers? The US guys could go more direct and therefore save time and fuel?
.4 |
Alaska Airlines to Hawaii.
I'd expect this to ease Alaska Airlines expansion into Hawaii which they've already been talking about.
Aloha! |
Originally Posted by dash6
(Post 3059916)
Perhaps we should be referring to EROPS. It matters not how many engines you have,if it's a hold,or cabin fire.
Was'nt the last controlled ditching in the North Atlantic a four engined aircraft? (Over to the history buffs.);) |
Originally Posted by JamesT73J
(Post 3060500)
I just read this over at FI's site. This is quite a change isn't it? Assuming it's purely based on the reliability statistics convincing the FAA that the time restriction is no longer necessary, why haven't the JAA considered it?
JAA (EASA) and ICAO intend to adopt similar rules, although there are likely to be some differences. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 17:47. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.