Only if you're not in FAA airspace...

ETOPS is a planning exercise to comply with the legal requirements. Once on the aircraft it becomes airmanship and practical solutions. For example: On an Atlantic crossing, if the weather at planning stage at Shannon was below the legal planning limits, somewhere like Dublin is used if suitable. However if one did suffer an engine failure and turned back, on checking the weather at Shannon and it was above limits, being closer this would be the nearest suitable airfield to land. Equally if the planned weather at Shannon at planning was suitable, but had deteriorated, it would be acceptable to fly pass Shannon and use the next suitable airfield. If you need to fly for more than 180 minutes to find a suitable airfield where you can carry out a safe landing, so be it. I don't think anyone would like to do this, and I would like to think the odds are unlikely that you will loose an engine at the most distant point from an airfield in flight.

A question then: Having suffered an engine failure, crossing the Atlantic in winter, Reykjavik is 20 minutes closer than returning to Shannon, however Reykjavik's weather is forecast at below freezing, gusting 45kts in snow showers, and Shannon is calm and CAVOK. Reykjavik is the nearest suitable, which is the more SENSIBLE...........

I was discussing Irkutsk recently about this very subject, more to consider the temperatures here. It can get to -60C, I think they were AF were lucky it was only -14C

How silly.

The Russian passenger carriers are quite competent at handling such a flight. If they are being forwarded in an Il-96 that will be one of a handful of carriers who use them, all of whom are fully up to Western standards - in fact compared to the US majors the catering will be a sight better, as will the attitude of the FAs.

180 minute time limit
 

Just for info, the 180 minute time limit is only a planning limit for the alternate airport. If you got an emergency, it is up to you, if you need a longer time period. It is totally legal to fly slower and to need more time. Most important is anyhow the safe operation. ETOPS pilot should know that. The crew which needed 12 minutes more was absolutely legal. No big deal. Just imagine you are forced to go around and you can´t because you got the 180 minute time limit !

woodpecker

not quite right, reality looks different !
do a research and you will be surprised about the number of engine failures in recent years, especially on the 777 ( maybe more a problem of the engine manufacturer )

and thats why I will not let my family fly across the pacific
or the north pole on a twin, very simple

Bottomofthepile,

Well, from the number of twins across the Atlantic it looks like the QE2 might just be the only option for your family then....

.....hang on! How many donks does that have, then?

Anorak time, QE2 has 9 diesel engines which provide power to drive two elctric motors each 9m in diameter but only requires seven engines to run at service speed. Thread creep I know but interesting.

Would you mind expanding your reasoning further and stating how many of those failures occured on twins maintained to ETOPS standard, how many occured in ETOPS sectors and how many resulted in a hull loss.

Or perhaps you prefer to make decisions based purely on emotion.

Witraz,
It is patently obvious with that wx that Reykjavik is no longer the nearest suitable.

- see - everything is flawed:D

Hope there is a RAT.

M.Mouse

Precisely

JF

Answer to Speech:
Yes, of course, on a 340 you would continue on 3 and avoid all these problems and delays...

I am sorry for not making any professional comments (I am not a pilot) but I continue to be interested and to learn from what is posted here. But, I tend to disagree with the statement:

"how many of those failures occured on twins maintained to ETOPS standard, how many occured in ETOPS sectors and how many resulted in a hull loss".

Is it not true that airplanes today are so safe that a problem is not likely to develop into a "hull loss". Does it imply that there is nothing to be improved? Perhaps that counting "hull losses" is not good enough to measure safety?

Hull losses are only a gross measure of safety. A hull loss may imply zero deaths, or 850 deaths.

Most air safety systems have automated or voluntary incident reporting. The incidents may have almost no safety implication by themselves (HUGE redundancy in a properly run airline), but are indicators of something that didn't go as planned or could otherwise be improved.

Based on these minutia, it is fairly straightforward to compute the propability of A+B+C+D all failing on a single flight, together presenting a genuine safety concern.

And you'd be amazed at how small the number is, compared to the risk of crossing the street.

Sorry to be pedantic, but normally, you don't want to land in Reykjavík (BIRK) in anything bigger than a Fokker (any model). You'll be waking up half of the island's population when reversing. You however want to land in Keflavík (BIKF) :D

It was impossible to get a fully-loaded Liberator out of Reykjavik in 1945. They had to go to Meeks Field for operational take-offs.

What with all of the usual thread creep I just thought you would like to know that!

GE90 being flown out along with the associated engineering spares and equipment as I type, on board Volga Dnepr AN124. So the change is being done in Irkutsk. There is hangerage but not large or safe enough by the looks of it for a B777.

I believe the MOCA is around FL115 on that route, nothing a 777 can't handle on one engine.

ETOPS is all about planning, as long as that part is covered the actual flight can go over those limits or you might choose another alternate if it's better/nearer by.
Although willingly flying over 3 hours on one engine remains doubtfull, the checklist tells us to land at the "nearest suitable airport" and I sure as hell will! :-)

We've used them too for a '90, so AF are not going to attempt a fan/core split:hmm: The GE90 is a tight fit even in that huge fuselage with some very careful handling required by the IPL operators.