Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
ETOPS  
User currently offlineNYC Int'l From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (15 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 916 times:

The paragaph below says that the max ETOPS allowed is 3 hours how are twins allowed to cross the atlantic is there some kind of exception?


ETOPS is an acronym for Extended-Range Twin-Engine Operations. Without an ETOPS rating, an aircraft with only two engines must be able to get to an airport where it can safely land within 60 minutes if an engine fails in-flight. ETOPS extends this "rule time" to 90 minutes or more, up to a maximum of 180 minutes. Obtaining an ETOPS rating requires certification of the reliability of an airframe/engine combination as well as an airline's flight operations and maintenance. Usually extra equipment is required as well, such as additional backup systems for electrical power. ETOPS does not require over-water equipment (e.g., life rafts) or additional fuel tanks, though these are usually required for the typical missions of ETOPS-rated aircraft.
Some pilots claim ETOPS really means "Engines Turn Or Passengers Swim




9 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29795 posts, RR: 58
Reply 1, posted (15 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 913 times:

No. They have to stay with 3 hours of a open airport that they can land at. That is why the northern routes are so popular. There a landing fields in Novia Scotia, Northwest Territories(or whatever they call it now), Greenland, Iceland and Ireland


OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineCX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4454 posts, RR: 5
Reply 2, posted (15 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 913 times:

I am not afraid of techonology or fly-by-wire but I don't think they should be operating twins over the pacfic like Boeing is trying to push. What do you all think?


"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
User currently offlineBryanG From United States of America, joined May 1999, 432 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (15 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 913 times:

Ever since they started operating the 757, 767, and A300 and A310 over the Atlantic more than 15 years ago, there's never been a crash on the ocean due to a twin losing both of its engines. Twin engined planes now cross the Atlantic more than any other type of aircraft. In the early days, an ocean on two engines would have been unthinkable, but nowadays the engines are really that reliable. I wouldn't hesitate to fly the Pacific in a 777.

It's easy to say "what if" both engines fail and teh plane goes down, but until now that's never happened and the chances of it ever happening go down every day.



User currently offlineL1011 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 1674 posts, RR: 9
Reply 4, posted (15 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 913 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Just because it's never happened doesn't mean it won't. I hope I never have to cross the Pacific in a twin. I crossed the Atlantic in a Delta 767 only because my Singapore 747 flight was discontinued and they couldn't get me on anything else. It wasn't my choice. This summer I'll be flying across the Atlantic on a Continental DC-10. I'm hoping and praying that they don't dump their DC-10s for 777s by then. If they do, I guess I'll have no choice but to fly them, what with nonrefundable tickets and all.

Bob Bradley
Richmond, VA



Fly Eastern's Golden Falcon DC-7B
User currently offlinefly777ual From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4512 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (15 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 913 times:

Personally, there is a comfort of knowing you have more than two engines, however, I felt so much more comfortable flying aboard the 777 from SFO-LHR, than a DC-10 from DEN-SFO.

User currently offlineDC-10 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (15 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 913 times:

Yes they are allowed to cross the ocean. Plenty of airlines do it with the 767, 777, A300, and even the 757. There are more places to land on a US-UK route then one might think within a 3 hour span.

User currently offlineCX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4454 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (15 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 913 times:

Just to let you know. The statement about twins crossing the Atlantic more than anything else is only partially correct. Flights starting in America have more twins but flights orginating from Europe still operate more quads.

*** Most U.S. airlines operate the 767/777 across the Atlantic while U.K and European airlines fly 747/777s, MD-11s and A340-300s.



"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
User currently offlineAA727 From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 124 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (15 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 913 times:

NYC Int'l is right anb explained it well what ETOPS is all about. The other acronym for ETOPS is Extended range Twin engine Overwater Passenger Service. All aircrafts crossing the Atlantic must obtain an ETOPS rating of at least 138 minutes, 120 minutes is not enough because at some point while crossing the ocean you can end up being more than two hours away from the nearest airport in the event of an engine failure. So now they all obtain 180 minutes certification.
See you later folks.
Ben Soriano
Brussels Belgium


User currently offlinewalshy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (15 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 913 times:

We use the full 180mins on LAX / PPT route.
Only suitable enrte fields are HNL or ITO (hilo).
Also etops rules seem to be very flexible from state to state.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
CO 737-900ER ETOPS... posted Thu Aug 14 2008 07:20:34 by EA772LR
FI: Embraer Gets ETOPS-120 For E-190 posted Thu Apr 24 2008 15:31:25 by SpruceMoose
Delta Transatlantic - Etops 180? posted Mon Feb 25 2008 07:26:56 by AF022
First Photo DL's Etops 757 Cabin posted Tue Feb 12 2008 04:11:09 by Flynavy
Twin Engine ETOPS...Pushing Their Evolution Limits posted Sun Feb 10 2008 06:40:08 by Manfredj
Why Is The 757 The Etops Narrowbody Of Choice? posted Thu Feb 7 2008 07:23:55 by Manfredj
? About Alaska Airlines Regarding ETOPS Aircraft. posted Thu Jan 31 2008 12:49:25 by ASFlyer81
A330 First To Be Certified To New FAA Etops Rules posted Mon Jan 7 2008 06:41:42 by Zeke
Etops And Amsterdam Island? posted Mon Dec 24 2007 17:16:41 by Alessandro
What Is This Etops In The Picture posted Mon Dec 24 2007 09:37:22 by Mandargb