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?

THIS is the FlightGlobal article on the topic.

It says:

I do enjoy how they spin the more direct routings as "good for the environment" rather than "saving money on fuel".

I use to fly hours over water with one engine, I don't much care for it but never had a problem. I like more then 2 engines also but in reality, how many is enough?

It will not be long before there will be no ETOPS restrictions.


It is inevitable.

Surely its 3:30 Etops AKA 210 minutes

ANZ aren't opening up the ill-fated Antarctic sightseeing trip again are they ? :-o

It's sad that many of the posts on here show so little understanding of what EDTO/ETOPS certification involves.

Not strictly true.

ETOPS Maintained a/c need to have similar critical systems checked/serviced by different personel. This includes engine oil servicing, IDG servicing, etc. :ok:

compressor stall said : "It's sad that many of the posts on here show so little understanding of what EDTO/ETOPS certification involves."

My understanding is that it means the aeroplane has sufficient redundancy with such things as generators driven from the hydraulics and hydraulics driven off the lectrics - as well as direct from the engines, systems that allow all the systems (undercart deployment, flaps, elevators, ailerons) to be driven in the event of a single engine failure; plus a proven record of low engine inflight shut down rates and an approved minimum equipment list at dispatch, that the certification authorities believe the risks of flying some specific time (distance at a given speed) from the nearest available airfield are acceptable.

The new acronym is Extended Diversion Time Operations and this is one document that sets out one set of rules http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_asset...s/ops/82_1.pdf

Why do you think other posters are wide of the mark ?

@blade

Nope. It's 330 minute, not 3 hour and 30 minute.

See THIS Flightglobal article.

Only in Aus.

But there are many routes where 330 min could be useful. NZ to South America, any flights crossing Antarctica, US to South Africa etc.

And NZ where these Aircraft are to operate from. Consider this in the context of EDTO (not ETOP's) and things become clearer. As for those states that dont have EDTO, Im sure they soon will.

'Tis easy to do, fuel savings x 3 = tonnes of CO2 (approx) ...:ok:

The real deciding factor for ETOPS times is not "how long can you fly on 1 engine", as the answer is effectively infinitely; these engines have a phenomonally low IFSD rate.
It is fire suppression (for the holds) that is the limiting factor.

When I first heard that it was No. Eight

Lost an engine on a 747 during climb, dumped and went back. Co-pilot queried this decision as we had enough fuel to continue to destination on 3, it being one of those fuel-tankering sectors - i.e. cheaper to top up ( and carry ) with cheap(er) fuel at that departure point. I pointed out that there was a lot of shark infested ocean between departure and arrival points.

QED

Ah yes, but the chances of its also being built on a Monday morning are only 1 in 7...

That's what I like about discussion boards :E

Cold hard facts

actually the poster's assesment that it's mostly aircraft and not engines as the issue is correct

pointless username
 

The crew will have 5h+ to think about the IFSD rate at max continuous thrust.

Who knows? A few tests by Boeing / Engine manufacturer but not enough hours to be statistically valid.

Just build them all with one engine to start with, imagine the fuel savings and other economies that will deliver. If the rationale is to continue flight on one engine for a time which would cover most transit sectors in the world then why do you need two engines to start with? Most commercial flights take off using reduced thrust settings to start with and then reduce thrust further once in the cruise so that the combined thrust of 2 engines would be roughly equal to one engine operating at higher thrust settings. Redundancy can still be supplied and applied through design for one engine (as it is now for ETOPS). It is nothing new for single engine jet aircraft to operate over large expanses of ocean, it was being done long before ETOPS was ever thought of, with the limiting flight time factor being the engine oil capacity.

Sorry to say, servicing (eng oil, idg, bug) does not require separate maintenance crew. Only so many eng systems require separate maint teams, this can also be negated by testing. ETOPS rules with regards to critical system maintenance have never been totally definitive so room for different interpretations exist. I have worked for 2 operators of 777 etops and they both play it differently, which demonstrates the point.