Air New Zealand to take 777-300ERs with 330min ETOPS
 

A simple survey to see who thinks this is going too far (literally).

Is it ok for you to be expected to fly for 330 minutes to the nearest suitable alternate, on one engine, knowing the other is as dead as a dodo?

The engine failing is not the worst thing. If you have a fire on board somewhere that it can not be found or extinguished you have roughly 20 min to get it on the ground whether it's an airport or not. That's my biggest fear, most other problems you will have time to sort it out or at least isolate the damage.

That goes for whether you have a twin or 4 engine aircraft. Twins used to have better fire suppression, I don't know whether that is still the case.

What routes require such a long ETOPS period .... and would it require a more stringent MEL than say 138 mins ?

It's all about money. Airlines don't want to spend fuel on 4 engine planes anymore. But come on, 5 and a half hours on a twin engine that only has one remaining in function? And i used to think 180 ETOPS was too much already and they should have kept it at 120 max. Now 330mn I don't even see the use of having ETOPS anymore it doesn't make sense!

so often an idea is a great idea until it isn't

Nassim Taleb would be a suitable chap to consult for this subject

United 777 engine out and ETOPS

You can prove anything with statistics and the MTBF rate is extremely good but the ideal a/c was when the flight engineer tapped the Captain on the shoulder to say "We've just lost number four!" to which he replies "Which side?"

As Dave Gittins said, what route would require the use of 330 minute ETOPS? 5 and a half hours from a landing?

It will give more flexibility when en route alternates are below the required weather minima - in fact at the despatch stage they won't have to (legally) consider as many en route alternates.

There is no cause for alarm
 

"Some of you on the right side of the plane may have seen big chunks of metal fly out of the no2 engine....

... however there is no cause for alarm because we still have one good engine and we are only 2500 miles from the next suitable runway...

... despite the fact that the no1 engine appears to be holding together right now, you may be reassured to know that we carry a small stock of polar bear repellent and shark repellent"

'twas Lord Brabazon who, when asked why Bristol Brabazon had 8 engines replied:-

"because I couldn't fit ten onto it..."

Seriously tho' why bother with ETOPS - the only reason I can think of is that I suppose if it wasn't required they'd fly any old rubbish 330 minutes from safety. At least teis way they have to upgrade some systems

Maybe they want to bring the whole thing back to home , instead of land somewhere behind enemy lines .
Is the only reason i can see to fly 330 min Etops.

what route?
 

AKL-EZE and maybe AKL-SCL
currently only Aerolineas Argentina (to EZE) and LAN (to SCL) are flying non-stop from AKL to South America - both use A340. Similar route is flown by Qantas (to SCL and EZE) with 747s.

Its not ETOP's anymore, it's EDTO.

Don't forget that the remaining engine you're relying on was manufactured and maintained by the same company/individual as the one that has failed. :eek:

At least you get life rafts/ELB's.

Here in Oz, some bright spark has approved flights upto 400nm from land with no life rafts.

Just jump on the escape slides you may say. That may sound fine but there is no portable ELB's to grab on the way out.

As if life rafts will be even get to the point of being used in the event of engine outages over the ocean.

ETOPS 330 sort of beats the purpose of even having ETOPS at all doesn't it? 5 and half hours on one engine is an idea that doesn't offer much soothing to my soul...

You know, I've always found sort of daft that requirement by airlines "to be able to swim 1 and a half mile unaided". We ain't swimming much if we ever ditch! :rolleyes:

What good do rafts do at 75 North 80 West when the second engine throws craps?

Keep the corps afloat?