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

The certification doesn't apply yet to the -900, according to the story in the Seattle Times...

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?

Maybe they're putting a lot of faith in the life rafts...

..... and the ELT batteries. :sad:

money talks...bs walks....!


..scratch that....


....money talks....everybody else can swim......

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.

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.

No, this is the limit when your 787 is 'standard', however Boeing made arrangements so an operator could install more 'low flow rate' fire extinguishing bottles to meet the 330 min regulation limit. The same options to extend the time exist on the 777.

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!

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.

The choice of battery has to do with the required peak power output, not the weight.

How much peak power do the batteries produce after unexpected and not fully understood internal short fueled thermal runaways occur ?:confused:

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.

I suppose the shorter turn-around time includes the time to change out a "burned-out":p 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.

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.

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.

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?

:confused::confused: No, nothing changed as far as granting ETOPS.

No it doesn't. The 773 has greater than 180 min EDTO and yet hardly ever uses it. The Pacific can be covered using 180 min quite effectively to get to the US going one way or Asia going the other. South America, if it ever happens, can be made using 180 min.

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.