FAA approves 787 for ETOPS 330
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Texas, like a whole other country
Posts: 444
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
FAA approves 787 for ETOPS 330
Despite the hullabaloo over the batteries, eventual grounding and a still-standing NTSB recommendation for further testing, the FAA have approved the Boeing 787 for ETOPS 330 operations.
As with the original FAA grounding order, this applies only to the eight or so 787s operated by UA, since they are only US carrier with the aircraft at the moment. If other regulators follow the FAA lead (as is often the case), it could be a boon for operators in the southern hemisphere. Air New Zealand, for instance, pretty much needs ETOPS 330 to make the most of its 10 787-900s now on order.
Original source and more here
As with the original FAA grounding order, this applies only to the eight or so 787s operated by UA, since they are only US carrier with the aircraft at the moment. If other regulators follow the FAA lead (as is often the case), it could be a boon for operators in the southern hemisphere. Air New Zealand, for instance, pretty much needs ETOPS 330 to make the most of its 10 787-900s now on order.
Original source and more here
How does this square with the need to suppress a cargo hold fire? My understanding was that the B787 can do this for 180 minutes only. The A340-500/600, for example, can do it for 240 minutes and therefore are limited to 240 minutes from a suitable airport. Are they planning to modify the cargo fire suppression system to 330 minutes on the Dreamliner?
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Double Oak, Texas
Age: 71
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With he increased ETOPS comes some Good news for improved fire suppression on the 777 .....
The lightweight Li-ion, high tech batteries in the jet are now encased in heavy steel cases...... The batteries will still charge fast tho, with good fortune they may be available for standby battery power, should the unlikely need arise.
The lightweight Li-ion, high tech batteries in the jet are now encased in heavy steel cases...... The batteries will still charge fast tho, with good fortune they may be available for standby battery power, should the unlikely need arise.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Beyond the Blue Horizon
Age: 63
Posts: 1,257
Received 150 Likes
on
93 Posts
Humble SLF( and bill payer ) here, but I do hope that I do not have to paddle around the Southern Oceans, or trade my dinner with a large hungry Bear, assuming we, or I ,get from 40k ft to the ocean, or tundra and survive !. There maybe an impolite letter to Mr Boeing if I survive foresaid encounter with earth / sea /animals !. Given issues with 787 CURRENTLY (and I did fly on early ANA flight on this type) I will stay away until more hours are clocked up by respective operators to give me some confidence as there are many other types and operators to choose from.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Age: 72
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My understanding was that the B787 can do this for 180 minutes only.
Last edited by olasek; 30th May 2014 at 22:31.
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Inacave
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And the unasked question is: At what point does the extra cost, weight, and bulk become less profitable than with a more standard battery technology? Seems to me we're getting to that waypoint pretty fast!
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Paso Robles
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is not an 'unasked" question, it was asked before, Boeing was asked about it a good year ago - the weight is no longer benefit (it's a 'wash') but other advantages remain which were listed.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And the unasked question is: At what point does the extra cost, weight, and bulk become less profitable than with a more standard battery technology? Seems to me we're getting to that waypoint pretty fast!
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Potomac Heights
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe another factor that forced Boeing to stay with the Li ion batteries was the speed at which they could be recharged. Other batteries could have forced longer turnaround times.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Double Oak, Texas
Age: 71
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suppose the shorter turn-around time includes the time to change out a "burned-out"
battery and its' armoured vault?
I know, the certification is exhaustive and orchestrated by the best and brightest...... And a li-ion thermal runaway is highly unlikely, because the internal short process is so not understood or expected, besides, they are now safely locked up, sort of like an X-Man Magneto character vault/cage.
So, I suppose the logic is....
We don't know how,when or why the occasional self immolation, but they are better because well, they just are, trust us.
*Plus we are running a special on some litely used 737 rudder PAC thingamabobs that check a okay, and last long time.
battery and its' armoured vault?I know, the certification is exhaustive and orchestrated by the best and brightest...... And a li-ion thermal runaway is highly unlikely, because the internal short process is so not understood or expected, besides, they are now safely locked up, sort of like an X-Man Magneto character vault/cage.
So, I suppose the logic is....
We don't know how,when or why the occasional self immolation, but they are better because well, they just are, trust us.
*Plus we are running a special on some litely used 737 rudder PAC thingamabobs that check a okay, and last long time.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SKS777FLYER, the idea is with the number of power generator on the 787 that if you have gotten to the point of relying on that battery you're already praying, because it wouldn't be able to store enough power to get you home anyway.
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Las Vegas
Age: 48
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the 787 is now cleared for ETOPS 330, does that mean that Airbus has a better, worse or indifferent chance of getting the new A-350 rated for ETOPS 420?
I know these two planes were initially considered to be very similar as far as ETOPS operations go.
I know these two planes were initially considered to be very similar as far as ETOPS operations go.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Devon, England
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This makes a mockery of the whole ETOPS process.
Originally an airline advanced along the ETOPS programme to prove the reliability of engines, systems, and procedures, so that enhanced diversion time could be offered. Now it seems it is being granted on an airlines' total flight time basis?
Originally an airline advanced along the ETOPS programme to prove the reliability of engines, systems, and procedures, so that enhanced diversion time could be offered. Now it seems it is being granted on an airlines' total flight time basis?
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Air New Zealand, for instance, pretty much needs ETOPS 330 to make the most of its 10 787-900s now on order.
The extra range of the 789 would not be operated under EDTO rules, i.e. the first part of the flight will be EDTO due to location in the Pacific. However a long range flight to either the US or Asia would most likely have an EDTO exit point long before the end of the flight.