Separate servicing of engines on ETOPS aircraft
 

It would be an ideal ETOPS requirement to have 2 different sets of maintenance crew service the two engines separately using two different batches of engine oil and other stuff. Then they should cross-check each other's work. Well this ideal arrangement NEVER happens in the real world despite several incidents.

One incident that come to mind; some years ago an MAS B777 on an ETOPS flight suffered low oil quantity and pressure on BOTH engines about 30 minutes after takeoff. Luckily they beat a hasty return for landing ( without shutting down any engines due to LOP! )...the maintenance crew had left both engine oil tank caps open after oil servicing! It was a very close call.

Makes a difference if it is regularly sheduled maintenance (planned over months) or a response to a squwak.

Some examples of problem areas were

serviced oil on both engines and left filler caps off

Performed emergency borescope inspection of both engines after birdstrike and left both borescope plugs off,

Checkd both engines for signs of oil-hiding and failed to properly secure the cowls

and who can forget the EAL L1011 with all three engines.

It's those off-line stations that I worry about that don't often erform the action on that particular sustem

It is a requirement of all the ETOPS maintained aircraft that I have had the dubious privelige to certify that...
1. Engine oil servicing must be carried out (and certified in most cases) by seperate individuals who have been trained on type and received ETOPS recurrent training.
2.This also applies to IDGs and BUGs.

British, US, Far East & Middle East all seem to operate in a similar fashion.

The only exceptions I have come across is one far eastern airline accepts that one individual may top up the engine oils but they MUST be cross checked by a seperate Eng/Tech. Also some US carriers allow one mech to service both engine oils as long as they use different methods. IE Pressure fill on one and pour through the filler neck on the other.

Amazing, 45 posts and your all wrapped around the power plant issues. The limiting factor for this extension is fire suppression in the cargo holds, not how long you can run on one engine.You guys need to spend a little time reading AC120-42B before you start hitting the reply or send button.:}

Equally amazing is that it is not understood that ETOPS was promulgated primarily to deal with the propulsion systems and other aircraft systems were just bridesmaids.

If you have a raging fire in your cargo holds or anywhere else, it matters squat how many dongs you have!

It would be LROPS, if you want to consider the fire suppression systems. Most ETOPS aircraft have fire suppression capability of more than 240 minutes.......anyway what do I know?

Because noone is saying one wll never fail( though it doesn't often). It's about building a system where it is extremely unlikely that BOTH will fail. There are indeed single-engine Airline operations and, generally, they deviver high degrees of saftey.

two engines provide even more.

Just ask Sully
 

Two engines, over water, perfect weather, 6 miles to runway...God laughs at our silly etops plans.

Shall I hazard a prediction?

At some point, a 330 min ETOPS (or even 220) will go in with loss of all persons. ETOPS will get restricted during the investigation. Depending on the outcome, it might even be restricted a bit longer.

But, ETOPS (or any other acronym) is the only game in the world and it WILL continue. Inevitably, this being a human enterprise, some people will die.

Your predictions are likley to be true but it is more likely that it will be a 4 engine aircraft.

However, even with that, single data points are not significant to statistical analyis and regardless of the cause, the mechanical causal factors will be considered (are they segment time related) rather than I-told-you-so predictions.

For ETOPS at our carrier. Eng oil/BUG/IDG servicing by two seperate ETOPS qualified personnel is preferred but one is acceptable. Work on dual ETOPS signifcant systems by the same person requires a verfication flight.

PAXboy get over it. Your predictions are, how do I put it...dumb. Of course some day we will lose an ETOPS aircraft just as the AF 330. You didn't see ETOPS even being questioned in that accident. Where do you come up with this BS anyway? :mad: