Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing 747-400 Etops?  
User currently offlineSonicZoom87 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 30 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 16588 times:

Well just as the heading asks, I want to know what is the ETOPS for a Boeing 747-400.

Thanxxx

34 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSoBe From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 256 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 16587 times:

ETOPS does not apply to aircraft with more than 2 engines.

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


User currently offlineAdipasqu From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 238 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 16587 times:

0

ETOPS is for twins only.



707 722 732 733 734 735 73G 738 739 741 742 752 753 762 763 764 D9S D10 319 320 321 M80 M82 M83 M87 M88 M90 SF3 ERJ CRJ
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6483 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 16587 times:

ETOPS = Extended Twin-engine OPerationS

Now ask yourself, "how many engines does a 747-400 have?"



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineBA747YYZ From Canada, joined Mar 2006, 377 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 16490 times:

None, would be my guess.

User currently offlineDtwclipper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 16483 times:

Quoting N328KF (Reply 3):
Now ask yourself, "how many engines does a 747-400 have?"

That's easy: 4. Why else would they call it a 747?


User currently offlineBoeingfanyyz From Canada, joined Jul 2005, 991 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 16456 times:

Quoting Dtwclipper (Reply 5):
7

Or does it have 7 engines!?

Cheers,
Boeingfanyyz  airplane 



"If it aint boeing, it aint going!", "Friends are like condoms...they protect you when things get hard!"
User currently offlineSkibum9 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 1229 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 16430 times:

Quoting Dtwclipper (Reply 5):
Quoting N328KF (Reply 3):
Now ask yourself, "how many engines does a 747-400 have?"

That's easy: 4. Why else would they call it a 747?

With that line of thinking, please explain the 707....My god I hope that it had engines, the 717.... I guess the other one is for looks ..... the 727....I guess the third inlet is to provide ram air for the interior cabin... the 737....must of lost an engine in flight somewhere (must have been designed for Kalitta), the 767..... can't figure out where they are hiding the extra four engine....and the 777, maybe each engine really counts as 3.5 engines given their size. The things that make you go hmmmmm......



Tailwinds!!!
User currently offlineDtwclipper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 16419 times:

Quoting Skibum9 (Reply 7):
With that line of thinking, please explain the 707....

lost our sense of humor today, have we?  banghead 


User currently offlineSkibum9 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 1229 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 16395 times:

Quoting Dtwclipper (Reply 8):
Quoting Skibum9 (Reply 7):
With that line of thinking, please explain the 707....

lost our sense of humor today, have we?

Thought you were serious....it is getting late and I've been thrashing to long on the DL threads!



Tailwinds!!!
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21478 posts, RR: 60
Reply 10, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 16368 times:

ETOPS will eventually be redefined to apply to all aircraft. It's in study right now. And yes, the T will no longer refer to "twin" once that is changed.

The thinking is that the need for emergency landing locations and facilities to handle the passengers due to serious medical problem or cargo bay fire, for example (one reason for ETOPS that has nothing to do with engine out), does not depend on the number of engines a jet has. ETOPS for non-twins would deal with suitable diversion airports along a route in a more structured way.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineStudentFlyer From Australia, joined Sep 2004, 688 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 16317 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 10):
ETOPS will eventually be redefined to apply to all aircraft. It's in study right now. And yes, the T will no longer refer to "twin" once that is changed.

For the time being, it should be applied to BA 747s... The T would stand for trijet...

Sorry, just couldn't help myself.

But yes, I do agree if ETOPS does get applied to all aircraft. I agree with Ikramerica here!


User currently offlineLTU932 From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 13864 posts, RR: 50
Reply 12, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 16085 times:

Quoting StudentFlyer (Reply 11):
For the time being, it should be applied to BA 747s... The T would stand for trijet...

 rotfl   rotfl   rotfl 

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 10):
ETOPS will eventually be redefined to apply to all aircraft.

Doesn't it actually apply already today for all aircraft? After all, it also means Engines Turn Or Passengers Swim.  Wink

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 10):
The thinking is that the need for emergency landing locations and facilities to handle the passengers due to serious medical problem or cargo bay fire, for example (one reason for ETOPS that has nothing to do with engine out), does not depend on the number of engines a jet has. ETOPS for non-twins would deal with suitable diversion airports along a route in a more structured way.

It may all depend also on how the FAA and JAA see things IMO, which is why an application of ETOPS for all aircraft and not only twins is being studied (one of the possible names for this might be LROPS, which stands for Long Range Operations). I believe the JAA in Europe currently only certifies aircraft and airlines for up to ETOPS 180 while the FAA and other aviation authorities do contemplate ratings such as ETOPS 207 and 330 (when ETOPS 330 actually happens). Why is it that the JAA doesn't certify aircraft for ETOPS ratings higher than 180? I recall there was a reason for that, but I don't remember the details right now.


User currently offlineKiwiandrew From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 8544 posts, RR: 13
Reply 13, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 16075 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 12):
Doesn't it actually apply already today for all aircraft? After all, it also means Engines Turn Or Passengers Swim

no , it means

Enticing
Treats
for
Oour
Pacific
Sharks

anyway - I believe the term these days is EROPS just meaning Extended Range OPs - and those are the standards which all long haul a/c , not just twins , must meet



Moderation in all things ... including moderation ;-)
User currently offlineSCEagle From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 136 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 16039 times:

Quoting N328KF (Reply 3):
ETOPS = Extended Twin-engine OPerationS

Now ask yourself, "how many engines does a 747-400 have?"

Are we talking about a BA aircraft, or a different one?


User currently offlineBoeing767mech From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 1025 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 16008 times:

ETOPS = Engines Turn Or People Swim


Never under-estimate the predictably of stupidty
User currently offlineN160LH From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 280 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 15973 times:

When ETOPS started it referred to twin's and tri's (the 727)... However, I have heard that studies are suggesting that in the future every FAR 121 certified aircraft will have its own ETOPS rating... Meaning that each aircraft will be maintained with ETOPS MX pratices, and have its own unique time allotment from alternate airports...

N160LH



"I do alright up in the air, its down on the ground that I tend to mess up..."
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26376 posts, RR: 76
Reply 17, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 15957 times:

Quoting Kiwiandrew (Reply 13):

anyway - I believe the term these days is EROPS just meaning Extended Range OPs - and those are the standards which all long haul a/c , not just twins , must meet

The term is still ETOPS because EROPS doesn't exist yet.

Quoting N160LH (Reply 16):
When ETOPS started it referred to twin's and tri's (the 727)...

No, it only applied to twins, not trijets. The DC-10 and L1011 never had to deal with ETOPS



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineSpencer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2004, 1635 posts, RR: 17
Reply 18, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 15942 times:

I think the application to all aircraft is to be called LROPS, but just how will it be applied to all aircraft though? I mean, the ETOPS ruling is such that the distance to the nearest ETOPS equipped airport is within a certain time frame for a twin, not a tri or quad. By the way and just out of interest, I read that the chances of an engine loss on a quad is higher than that on a twin, which probably makes sense actually due that a quad has twice the number of engines, ie twice the probability than that of a twin! What's today's upper limit, (according to the capability of the airline), isn't it 180 minutes? Or is it 207 minutes (180 +15%). I know there's a proposal for a 240 minute "extension" and even with a possible 330minute certification. Isn't the latter just what the new 773ER was made for? Is the 777LR free from ETOPS restrictions?
Spencer.

[Edited 2006-04-08 10:46:54]


EOS1D4, 7D, 30D, 100-400/4.5-5.6 L IS USM, 70-200/2.8 L IS2 USM, 17-40 f4 L USM, 24-105 f4 L IS USM, 85 f1.8 USM
User currently offlineKiwiandrew From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 8544 posts, RR: 13
Reply 19, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 15924 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting N1120A (Reply 17):
The term is still ETOPS because EROPS doesn't exist yet.

ooops - when does EROPS kick in - is it still just a concept or is there a definite date when it applies to all types regardless of number of engines ?



Moderation in all things ... including moderation ;-)
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26376 posts, RR: 76
Reply 20, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 15901 times:

Quoting Spencer (Reply 18):
What's today's upper limit, (according to the capability of the airline), isn't it 180 minutes? Or is it 207 minutes (180 +15%).

The upper limit is ETOPS 180 with a case by case (almost always over the North Pacific) application 180 + 15% or ETOPS 207

Quoting Spencer (Reply 18):
I know there's a proposal for a 240 minute "extension" and even with a possible 330minute certification.

ETOPS 330 would basically eliminate all the rest of the ETOPS no go areas from the map

Quoting Spencer (Reply 18):
Isn't the latter just what the new 773ER was made for? Is the 777LR free from ETOPS restrictions?

The 777LR is still subject to ETOPS rules. It is a twin after all. As far as ETOPS 330 goes, Boeing did the testing for it with the prototype 773ER, but that is simply because it was the first new long range twin after the proposal. It would most likely also be available on the 772LR as well and the 787 and A350

Quoting Kiwiandrew (Reply 19):
ooops - when does EROPS kick in - is it still just a concept or is there a definite date when it applies to all types regardless of number of engines ?

I don't think a definate date has been decided



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineMonteycarlos From Australia, joined Mar 2005, 2107 posts, RR: 29
Reply 21, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 15888 times:

Quoting SonicZoom87 (Thread starter):
Well just as the heading asks, I want to know what is the ETOPS for a Boeing 747-400.

Man I haven't seen anyone get quite that roasted for a long time!

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 10):
ETOPS will eventually be redefined to apply to all aircraft. It's in study right now. And yes, the T will no longer refer to "twin" once that is changed.

Yeah, EROPS which will eventually become LROPS... However if it is redefined at all is contentious right now. Hell the way aircraft are going we won't need either!



It's a beautiful night to fly like a phoenix...
User currently offlinePavlin From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 15837 times:

Good topic. Need more questions like this

User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 15804 times:

Quoting BA747YYZ (Reply 4):
None, would be my guess.

Smartest thing I've read in Civ-Av in six months.


User currently offlineBond007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 5401 posts, RR: 8
Reply 24, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 15534 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 23):
Quoting BA747YYZ (Reply 4):
None, would be my guess.

Smartest thing I've read in Civ-Av in six months.

It would have been if he didn't say 'my guess' !!

Jimbo



I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
25 Post contains images DEVILFISH : The 727 should have been the 737, and vice versa. What were they thinking? Didn't Navy Aviation have something similar called "LOROPS"?
26 Post contains links and images CitationJet : Or does it have 5 engines? View Large View MediumPhoto © Steve Ruttley Or does it have 3 engines? View Large View MediumPhoto © Norman Gage
27 Post contains images Stitch : I'm going to guess here you're asking how long a 747 can fly on two engines (assuming it loses two of it's four unit in flight). The answer to that q
28 Spencer : Talking of 747s shutting down, remember the BA Lump that flew through volcanic ash and had a full 4 engine shutdown?! The a/c dropped to 12,000 before
29 N160LH : No it applied to the 727 when it first came out, but you are right about the DC-10 and L-1011... Just did a research paper on ETOPS MX... Turbine eng
30 Post contains images TommyBP251b : We also could name the Etops for a 747 "EFOPS": Extended four-engine operations.
31 Julius2005 : Think that in normal conditions ETOPS do not apply to B747's, could someone explain me what isit all about???
32 Spencer : Basically Julio, if I've understood your question right, then the chance a twin with an engine out (ie. running on one engine) making it to its desti
33 AirportGal : I believe the term being bantered around is LROPS - Long Range Operations.
34 Starlionblue : Common mistake. It's actually "Extended-range Twin-engine Operational Performance Standards". LROPS stands for "Long Range Operational Performance St
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...
Future Of Boeing 747-400's posted Tue May 9 2006 19:48:47 by GiveMeWings
62 Boeing 747-400 Order Backlog? posted Thu Mar 30 2006 00:47:20 by Vfw614
Aerolineas Argentinas Boeing 747-400 Seat Plan posted Tue Dec 13 2005 17:51:55 by Treeny
Boeing 747-400 Orders posted Sun Oct 9 2005 07:13:47 by Varig_dc10
Did The Boeing 747 400 Live Up To It's Expectation posted Sat Mar 5 2005 18:36:39 by 747400sp
Boeing 747-300 Vs Boeing 747-400 posted Mon Feb 28 2005 13:06:55 by Persotvik
Iberia Prepares For 1st Boeing 747-400 posted Wed Jul 7 2004 12:26:51 by Soups
Air Canada Boeing 747-400 posted Tue Mar 9 2004 08:17:39 by UnitedFlyer
Lufthansa Sends Boeing 747-400 To Malta Today! posted Tue Jul 23 2002 14:33:23 by BBADXB
Boeing 747-400 And PTV, Too Heavy / Costly? posted Fri May 31 2002 10:13:40 by Keesje
Boeing 747-400 KLM Princes Juliana ( Video ) posted Fri Mar 30 2007 06:22:13 by Mortyman
Future Of Boeing 747-400's posted Tue May 9 2006 19:48:47 by GiveMeWings
62 Boeing 747-400 Order Backlog? posted Thu Mar 30 2006 00:47:20 by Vfw614
Aerolineas Argentinas Boeing 747-400 Seat Plan posted Tue Dec 13 2005 17:51:55 by Treeny
Boeing 747-400 Orders posted Sun Oct 9 2005 07:13:47 by Varig_dc10
Did The Boeing 747 400 Live Up To It's Expectation posted Sat Mar 5 2005 18:36:39 by 747400sp
Boeing 747-300 Vs Boeing 747-400 posted Mon Feb 28 2005 13:06:55 by Persotvik
Iberia Prepares For 1st Boeing 747-400 posted Wed Jul 7 2004 12:26:51 by Soups