Newsstand - US FAA to end ETOPS range restrictions for qualified aircraft

Beginning 15 February, the US FAA will allow properly equipped and approved twin-engine airliners to fly oceanic and polar routes that are indefinitely out of range of emergency airports along the way.

The new rule is intended to boost dispatch reliability for carriers when alternate airports along a route are not available for landing due to inclement weather conditions, said FAA air carrier operations branch manager Robert Reich yesterday at a press conference.

A typical extended operations (ETOPS) approval for carriers flying twin-engine aircraft today is 180min, though United Air Lines has one approval for 207min.

With the limit opened up, however, carriers will boost the chances of being able to fly the most efficient routes as the number of alternative airports will be greater.

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2007/01/09/Navigation/177/211460/US+FAA+to+end+ETOPS+range+restrictions+for+qualifi ed.html

It's about time. The already-in-use 207 minute limit covers 95% of the earth's surface, so this won't be putting aircraft substantially farther out than they used to go.

Let's keep in mind also that reliability has reached the point where ETOPS is more a political question than a safety/reliability one. Europe doesn't like it because it hurts Airbus, while the US likes it because it helps Boeing. I imagine EU-based airlines will not see a change in their rules.

For those who might not know...

The 180 or 207 in those figures are the number of minutes that you can be from a suitable alternate airport in the event of an engine failure or shutdown. So, with 207 minute ETOPS you could have an engine fire then have to fly for nearly four hours (3:45) on the sole remaining engine before you could land.

3:45, not 3:27?

Let's keep in mind also that reliability has reached the point where ETOPS is more a political question than a safety/reliability one. Europe doesn't like it because it hurts Airbus, while the US likes it because it helps Boeing. I imagine EU-based airlines will not see a change in their rules.

The A330 and A350X programs will directly benefit from this rule change and, as the A340 is pretty much dead anyway, Airbus has much to lose by fighting this change in the ICAO if they decided to.

Right. 3.45, not 3:45, which is 3:27.

For those who might not know...

The 180 or 207 in those figures are the number of minutes that you can be from a suitable alternate airport in the event of an engine failure or shutdown. So, with 207 minute ETOPS you could have an engine fire then have to fly for nearly four hours (3:45) on the sole remaining engine before you could land.

I think with an engine fire ten minutes after takeoff they would probably turn around.

Who said anything about ten minutes after takeoff?

For those who might not know...

The 180 or 207 in those figures are the number of minutes that you can be from a suitable alternate airport in the event of an engine failure or shutdown. So, with 207 minute ETOPS you could have an engine fire then have to fly for nearly four hours (3:45) on the sole remaining engine before you could land.

That's why the whole point of the ETOPS program, including both engine parts and maintenance, is to make sure that the odds of a second engine going out if a first engine has gone out, essentially zero. It has never happened in the history of the ETOPS program; in contrast, British Airways doesn't mind flying a 747 from LAX to LHR on just three engines. :D

I hope this thread isn't going to turn into a four-is-better-than-two argument. Scientifically speaking, it's just not true. People who push four engines over ETOPS are just appealing to emotion, not science. But you're a pilot so you (hopefully) know that...

That's why the whole point of the ETOPS program, including both engine parts and maintenance, is to make sure that the odds of a second engine going out if a first engine has gone out, essentially zero. It has never happened in the history of the ETOPS program; in contrast, British Airways doesn't mind flying a 747 from LAX to LHR on just three engines. :D

I hope this thread isn't going to turn into a four-is-better-than-two argument. Scientifically speaking, it's just not true. People who push four engines over ETOPS are just appealing to emotion, not science. But you're a pilot so you (hopefully) know that...

BA has had all 4 engines go out at once.

BA has had all 4 engines go out at once.

I wonder if ETOPS 2-engine is equally safe, or actually MORE safe, than 4-engine. It's conceivable that ETOPS is actually safer due to the stricter engineering and maintenance standards, and the fact that two engines mounted on the same wing are much less reliable than two engines mounted on different wings (due to correlated failure modes).

There is the idea that you'll have twice as many engine failures on a quad than on a twin, all other things being equal.

Engine failures tend to be either one engine or all engines. In a few cases, a quad has lost both engines on one side due to physical damage (the United flight that lost a cargo door; the El Al cargo jet where #3 fell off and knocked off #4).

BA has had all 4 engines go out at once.

But that was because it went through a volcanic ash cloud from a nearby eruption in Indonesia. Wasn't a mechanical failure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_009

There have been quite a few ETOPS diversions. i.e. one engine fails or is shut down and the flight proceeds on a single engine to one of it's ETOPS alternates.

I'm glad you're comfortable with flying over 3-1/2 hours on a single engine to reach the closest alternate airport. I fly airliners for a living and I certainly would not be very comfortable in that situation.

BA has had all 4 engines go out at once.

was Bond on the plane?:p

There have been quite a few ETOPS diversions. i.e. one engine fails or is shut down and the flight proceeds on a single engine to one of it's ETOPS alternates.

Sounds to me like the system worked -- the second engine didn't fail.

I'm glad you're comfortable with flying over 3-1/2 hours on a single engine to reach the closest alternate airport. I fly airliners for a living and I certainly would not be very comfortable in that situation.

I do reliability analyses as part of my daily job (though not in the context of the transportation industry). The same mathematical and scientific principles that makes planes fly in the first place, make the chance of a second engine failure on an ETOPS aircraft infinitesimally small. I'm not sure why you want to pick and choose which math you believe...

Yes, the statistics are very good. Doesn't mean that it's a position that I'd want to be in. 3+ hours is a very long time.