ETOPS and LROPS Loss of cabin pressure or Fire
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Argentina
Age: 41
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ETOPS and LROPS Loss of cabin pressure or Fire
1-Does ETOPS and LROPS include the possibility of suffering a total loss of pressurization exactly at the ETP (Equal time point) between 2 suitable airports?
2-What equipment must have the aircraft to mitigate this situation?
(Example: More than normal oxygen to fly a portion of the flight at higher altitudes than 10.000 feet, in order to burn less fuel, etc.?)
What if the air inside the cabin cannot be conditioned? Too many hours at temperatures below zero could generate hypothermia
3-I think itīs obvious, that ETOPS and LROPS donīt take into account the possibility of a serious fire onboard. So, what type of equipment is necessary to mitigate it?
(Example: More than normal fire suppression bottles, etc.?)
Thanks
2-What equipment must have the aircraft to mitigate this situation?
(Example: More than normal oxygen to fly a portion of the flight at higher altitudes than 10.000 feet, in order to burn less fuel, etc.?)
What if the air inside the cabin cannot be conditioned? Too many hours at temperatures below zero could generate hypothermia
3-I think itīs obvious, that ETOPS and LROPS donīt take into account the possibility of a serious fire onboard. So, what type of equipment is necessary to mitigate it?
(Example: More than normal fire suppression bottles, etc.?)
Thanks
Last edited by alistomalibu; 25th Jul 2013 at 21:47.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Under ETOPS 3 scenarios have to be considered and fuel on board at the equal time point be sufficient for diversion to the suitable enroute alternate, approach,go around, hold 15 minutes, approach and land under the most limiting condition:
Engine failure and descent, followed by diversion.
Decompression and descent followed by two engined diversion
Simultaneous engine failure and decompression followed by descent and diversion.
Generally the most limiting is a decompression and descent followed by two engined diversion.
Engine failure and descent, followed by diversion.
Decompression and descent followed by two engined diversion
Simultaneous engine failure and decompression followed by descent and diversion.
Generally the most limiting is a decompression and descent followed by two engined diversion.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Argentina
Age: 41
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Matey
Does this apply for LROPS flights (4 engines)
Must they have enough fuel to fly from the ETP to the enroute alternate at 10.000 feet?
Example: From Ezeiza to Sydney. I think they have only 2 options (New Zealand and Punta Arenas or Ushuaia). The ETP is in the middle of nowhere...Probably 5 hours away from any airport
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalk.../11/EZESYD.jpg
Does this apply for LROPS flights (4 engines)
Must they have enough fuel to fly from the ETP to the enroute alternate at 10.000 feet?
Example: From Ezeiza to Sydney. I think they have only 2 options (New Zealand and Punta Arenas or Ushuaia). The ETP is in the middle of nowhere...Probably 5 hours away from any airport
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalk.../11/EZESYD.jpg
3-I think itīs obvious, that ETOPS and LROPS donīt take into account the possibility of a serious fire onboard. So, what type of equipment is necessary to mitigate it?
(Example: More than normal fire suppression bottles, etc.?)
(Example: More than normal fire suppression bottles, etc.?)
Does this apply for LROPS flights (4 engines)
Must they have enough fuel to fly from the ETP to the enroute alternate at 10.000 feet?
Must they have enough fuel to fly from the ETP to the enroute alternate at 10.000 feet?
The aircraft that operate the routes you mentioned (ie B744, B77W, A343, etc) are typically configured with additional oxygen bottles that would allow an initial descent to FL140 following a depressurisation, cruise at FL140 for several hours, followed by a descent to 10,000ft once the passenger oxygen was depleted. The fuel calculations would be based on shutting off 70% of the oxygen masks following the initial descent to FL140.
Last edited by BuzzBox; 26th Jul 2013 at 11:45.
Alistomalibu, on the EZE-SYD flights that I operated we had a longest ETP of just under four hours. A bit scary if you think about it too much! There was always McMurdo ice runway but you'd need to be desperate to go there. SYD-DFW gets into some lonely airspace too. Our B744 can make any decompression diversion at F140. The "Silk Route" was the joker in that pack with truly horrendous lengths of time above F200 to get to the diversion airports. Luckily it was rarely used and now never used, the A380 can't do it.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Argentina
Age: 41
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I appreciate all the comments. Thanks!
A few more questions:
1-Why decompression and descent followed by two engined diversion is the most limiting scenario?
Should not be the option 3 indicated by Matey? - Simultaneous engine failure and decompression followed by descent and diversion?
2-Does the fuel calculations for the diversion at FL140 or FL100 take into account the use of engine anti-ice and wing anti-ice during all the diversion time?
3-What does generate more burn of fuel?
A few more questions:
1-Why decompression and descent followed by two engined diversion is the most limiting scenario?
Should not be the option 3 indicated by Matey? - Simultaneous engine failure and decompression followed by descent and diversion?
2-Does the fuel calculations for the diversion at FL140 or FL100 take into account the use of engine anti-ice and wing anti-ice during all the diversion time?
3-What does generate more burn of fuel?
A. Flying at FL250 on one engine (Twin engine aircraft). I have read, that this generates approximate 30% more of fuel burn.
B. Flying at FL140 - FL100 with all the engines operative. Does somebody know the approximate % of increase in fuel burn?
Thanks!
B. Flying at FL140 - FL100 with all the engines operative. Does somebody know the approximate % of increase in fuel burn?
1/ When operating at such low levels the engine rotor speeds are so low that the engine is operating way off design criteria. Translated - it gets thirsty.
2/ Yes, depending on forecasts.
3/ I don't know the numbers but the flight plan often has a fuel build up to cover it.
2/ Yes, depending on forecasts.
3/ I don't know the numbers but the flight plan often has a fuel build up to cover it.
You can only calculate specific fuel burn and altitude scenarios with the type ODM. There may be situations with low altitude transit after depressurisation where you achieve a greater ANM/KG with engine(s) shut down although, I believe the spirit of the regulations is that you maintain all servicable powerplants in operation during diversion (for fuel planning/TOPL before flight).
1-Why decompression and descent followed by two engined diversion is the most limiting scenario?
2-Does the fuel calculations for the diversion at FL140 or FL100 take into account the use of engine anti-ice and wing anti-ice during all the diversion time?
3-What does generate more burn of fuel?
Last edited by BuzzBox; 28th Jul 2013 at 01:12.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just for illustration purposes as my current type is 737NG, on this aircraft in ISA conditions at 10000 ft the fuel burn per air nm is about 7% greater on two engines than one. The B767-300 was most limited by two engine burn also.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Argentina
Age: 41
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Again, I appreciate all your comments!
Thank you very much
Interesting to know about this approximate percentages:
By Buzzbox
"Flying at FL250 with one engine inoperative burns approximately 30% more fuel than all engines normal cruise (FL370-ish)"
By Buzzbox
"Flying at FL140 - FL100 with all engines operating burns approximately 15-20% more fuel than flying at FL250 with one engine inoperative."
By Matey
"Flying at 10.000 ft the fuel burn is about 7% greater on two engines than one"
More comments about ETOPS and LROPS will be appreciated
Thank you very much
Interesting to know about this approximate percentages:
By Buzzbox
"Flying at FL250 with one engine inoperative burns approximately 30% more fuel than all engines normal cruise (FL370-ish)"
By Buzzbox
"Flying at FL140 - FL100 with all engines operating burns approximately 15-20% more fuel than flying at FL250 with one engine inoperative."
By Matey
"Flying at 10.000 ft the fuel burn is about 7% greater on two engines than one"
More comments about ETOPS and LROPS will be appreciated
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: nowhere
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does this apply for LROPS flights (4 engines)
Must they have enough fuel to fly from the ETP to the enroute alternate at 10.000 feet?
Example: From Ezeiza to Sydney. I think they have only 2 options (New Zealand and Punta Arenas or Ushuaia). The ETP is in the middle of nowhere...Probably 5 hours away from any airport
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalk.../11/EZESYD.jpg
But this is subject to confirmation by people more in the know and up to date.
Last edited by JammedStab; 30th Jul 2013 at 02:27.
The B744 can crz at F140 with the legal number of pax on oxy for a very long time, long enough for us to divert to where ever. Hence we do the sums based on F140 which really helps our range at such a low alt.
are your pax on a gaseous emergency oxy?