Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Tech Log
Reload this Page >

FAA approves 787 for ETOPS 330

Wikiposts
Search
Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

FAA approves 787 for ETOPS 330

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 3rd Jun 2014, 21:51
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 68
Posts: 4,416
Received 180 Likes on 88 Posts
Juliet has it right.
180 minute ETOPS will get you pretty much anywhere in the world (at least that has a reasonable airport ), but the routing may not be optimal. 330 minute ETOPS allows optimal routing for all but a handful of potential south pole Antarctic routes.
tdracer is online now  
Old 4th Jun 2014, 21:07
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Devon, England
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
No, nothing changed as far as granting ETOPS.

Okay so how is the average airline to advance along the ETOPS diversion time?

Are any of the technical problems for the 787 been addressed in this exercise so far?
manrow is offline  
Old 14th Jun 2014, 21:12
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
ETOPS 330 without a airworthy RAT?

Nothing can go wrong there..
underfire is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2014, 02:37
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Double Oak, Texas
Age: 71
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Don't need no stinkin' RAT. All the layers of primary and backup electrical....they are...well ..... They are all first rate on the jet, no worries mate.
SKS777FLYER is offline  
Old 16th Jun 2014, 22:35
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Not NZ anymore sadly!
Age: 62
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Boeing 787-9 gets cert

FAA/EASA + 330 min ETOPS too.
1279shp is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2014, 00:20
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Ohio
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I wonder about this as well.
Still, the real aviation guys live at the FAA.
The NTSB folks are more like enthusiastic amatuers, and this shows in many of their recommendations as well as their findings of probable cause.
Between the two, I'd go with the aviation guys over the plane/truck/train/bus/ship folks.
More expertise relevant to the mode of transport.
fdcg27 is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2014, 04:40
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Double Oak, Texas
Age: 71
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The real aviation guys at the FAA followed the even more real aviation guys in Boeing Ops and development and engineering for years re the B737,
"Our rudder does not have a deadly problem"
SKS777FLYER is offline  
Old 20th Jun 2014, 12:50
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 145
Received 5 Likes on 2 Posts
It has been suggested that with the 330 ETOPS, Qantas could run 787/900s on the Sydney Johannesburg Sydney and Sydney Santiago Sydney routes!!
Halfway into those flights, if the batteries caused a problem, given they still really dont know the cause of the fires,thats a lot of water and a long way to go to reach land!!
Boe787 is offline  
Old 20th Jun 2014, 13:55
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Double Oak, Texas
Age: 71
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
As pointed out earlier in the thread, B787 primary and etcetera electrics are sooooo good, they don't need to rely on the lightweight, charge fast, high peak power, heavy armor encapsulated lithium-ion...... "We really don't understand them, but trust us, batteries."
SKS777FLYER is offline  
Old 20th Jun 2014, 18:12
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Age: 72
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
SKS777FLYER - can you contribute anything of substance instead on wasting bandwidth with nonsensical posts?
olasek is offline  
Old 20th Jun 2014, 23:23
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Double Oak, Texas
Age: 71
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
So my posts are more non-sensical than the goofy Li-ion not-quite-understood batteries in the heavy armor on the 787, and more so even than deadly Boeing 737 rudder pacs for so many years?
Love the designers and engineers who made the beasts that supported most of my career in Boeings, just sad for the folks affected by the sometimes experimental sub-systems
SKS777FLYER is offline  
Old 24th Jun 2014, 03:01
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Near Puget Sound
Age: 86
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Enthusiastic amateurs?

Still, the real aviation guys live at the FAA.
The NTSB folks are more like enthusiastic amatuers, and this shows in many of their recommendations as well as their findings of probable cause.

I think you got it backwards. The NTSB are the real professionals.
goldfish85 is offline  
Old 24th Jun 2014, 13:11
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 64
Posts: 7,204
Received 403 Likes on 250 Posts
Can we get back to the 787 and ETOPS rather than clan wars between the FAA and NTSB?
Lonewolf_50 is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.