So, shouldn't it become EQOPS now?

4 over 2
 

Well said Rabbit

The quad I fly has 240 mins fire protection - thats pretty good I'd say

But not all of them do, and None of them are REQUIRED to.

That is the rule that is being changed gjp. Just because your company opted to take the expense of adding the firefighting beyong the regulations required of it does not mean that all operators did.

So basically, it will be to your advantage to have etops rules extended to all aircraft as the firefighting expenses willnow have to be born by all quad operators, not just your company.

Rabbit, its not the same on all aircraft, some operators have virtually none other than the theoretical "Self smothering" compartments that worked so well for valujet down in the everglades.

Cheers
Wino

All US operators have been required to fit fire suppression and extinguishing equipment to aircraft cargo holds since the 2001 deadline.
Nothing new here.

And...a very good idea, IMO.

411a yeah but the length of supression time is being increased.

Cheers
Wino

Buster Hyman, it's being named LROPs - Long Range Ops.

Interesting, does that mean that no regard is to be taken of long routes that are over lots of land masses with lots of airports.

lomapaseo there's a much better explanation of this concept at THIS link than I could give.

Apologies...link edited and now correct!

Uh, thanks. However I notice that it was an Airbus document written with the statistical non-descript word may in several places justifying its intent.

I prefer to read a regulatory justification instead if it indeed has one.

Buster and Max,

I always thought that ICAO and others referred to EROPs (Extended Range Operations), of which ETOPS was a subset specifically for twins. Mind you, that was 10 years ago so it is probably time to re-invent the wheel.