PolymerPlane From United States of America, joined May 2006, 991 posts, RR: 3 Posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 3881 times:
An article from reuters suggest that U.S. is closing on approving a new ETOPS rule that will allow further routing from emergency diversion points.
Quote: - The Bush administration is close to finalizing a measure that will let twin-engine jetliners on long-haul flights take more direct routes over water and the polar region, the top U.S. aviation regulator said on Wednesday.
U.S. regulators have spent the past two decades issuing waivers to rules that govern how far twin-engine aircraft can fly from emergency airports. The changes in the works now would standardize procedures for the first time.
For instance, Blakey said fuel saving technology, precise flight planning and routing make a requirement that aircraft carry large fuel reserves on long-haul flights outdated.
"The regulation, in the works for three years, would permit all planes outside US air space to fly further from emergency airports than currently allowed, saving fuel and time.
The initiative would also enable airlines to replace aging and costly four engine planes with more efficient twin-engine models."
"I think you will see it puts an end to the two engines versus four debate and it does make possible planning for a high degree of reliability and safety," Marion Blakey, the administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration said.
I believe that Airbus put an end to the debate with the 350
Cubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 21240 posts, RR: 19 Reply 2, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 3708 times:
Still, this is partially an academic argument as the need for 330 is pretty limited- just South America, Central America, and the southeast U.S. to Australia and New Zealand. EZE-AKL and SCL-AKL are the only presently flown routes that require it.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
DAL767400ER From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 5721 posts, RR: 50 Reply 3, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3626 times:
Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 2): Still, this is partially an academic argument as the need for 330 is pretty limited- just South America, Central America, and the southeast U.S. to Australia and New Zealand. EZE-AKL and SCL-AKL are the only presently flown routes that require it.
Very true indeed. The 'markets' for ETOPS are indeed very limited, and for those markets, there's also the question whether such a route would actually be worthwhile operating. Routes like ATL/DFW-SYD, JFK-AKL, EZE/SCL-JNB or JNB-SYD are the few routes other than the two mentioned that would have an advantage from ETOPS330, but then again, the carriers that would possibly operate such routes would probably use Quads anyway (QF, SAA, AR or LAN).
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21029 posts, RR: 60 Reply 4, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3593 times:
ETOPS 330 may be excessive, but ETOPS 270, for example, would help a lot. Just because Boeing has proven the 777LR family can do ETOPS 330 doesn't mean that will be the new standard.
Some of the new regulations would apply to non-twins, at least as proposed. Not exactly the same regulations, but similar in that ALL jets will need the same fire suppression systems and ability to fly at 10000 feet for long distances to be allowed to stray too far from a diversion airport. As it is right now, the "SAFE" 4-holers flying over the eastern south pacific and the south pole are not any safer other than engine out ops, as a fire or pressure loss could lead to catastrophe on those planes.
The upside is the new fuel margin rules would also apply to quads, making them more economical and even increasing potential range by not having to hold as much fuel in reserve...
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Cubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 21240 posts, RR: 19 Reply 7, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 3394 times:
Quoting DAL767400ER (Reply 3): Routes like ATL/DFW-SYD, JFK-AKL, EZE/SCL-JNB or JNB-SYD
I think JFK-SYD can be operated pretty much on the great circle route with 240, and staying within 240 doesn't require too much of a diversion on EZE-JNB. JNB-SYD very much does require 330.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
Cubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 21240 posts, RR: 19 Reply 9, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3032 times:
Quoting DAL767400ER (Reply 8): That's true, but I was talking about JFK-AKL
It would help if I were literate. A great circle route JFK-AKL requires 330, but similar to EZE-JNB, it could probably be flown with a 240 equipped aircraft.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
Cubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 21240 posts, RR: 19 Reply 11, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2843 times:
It's less than 20 miles longer. Pretty negligible.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
Timz From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 6468 posts, RR: 8 Reply 12, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2744 times:
Turns out that AKL-JFK is 7671.13 nm direct, and 7673.18 nm via a point that keeps it within 1600 nm of Hilo and Los Cabos (which has a 9843-foot runway, so hopefully it's an allowable alternate).
Cubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 21240 posts, RR: 19 Reply 13, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2681 times:
And just for the sake of pointing it out, staying within 1600 nm on JNB-SYD adds about 220 nm to the trip... still really not a heck of a lot in the grand scheme of things.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
Zvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 65 Reply 15, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 2489 times:
Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 2): Still, this is partially an academic argument as the need for 330 is pretty limited- just South America, Central America, and the southeast U.S. to Australia and New Zealand. EZE-AKL and SCL-AKL are the only presently flown routes that require it.
That assumes that all the alternates are always available, which is not the case -- due usually to weather, sometimes construction or other reasons.
Cubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 21240 posts, RR: 19 Reply 16, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 2448 times:
Quoting Timz (Reply 14): Staying within 1600 nm of ... Diego Garcia?
I was using RUN as an alternate, but I don't know how long the runway is there... is it legit?
Quoting Zvezda (Reply 15):
That assumes that all the alternates are always available, which is not the case -- due usually to weather, sometimes construction or other reasons.
True, but even from 180 to 240, you don't really gain the ability to run too many routes.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
SunriseValley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 3952 posts, RR: 4 Reply 17, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 2359 times:
A hypothetical JFK-AKL service might well wish to avoid Mexican airspace because of the alleged excessive fees charged by the Mexicans. In doing so it would fly on the edge of the ETOPS180 pattern as shown on Great Circle Mapper.
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21029 posts, RR: 60 Reply 18, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 2271 times:
What people are figuring out is something that I have been pointing out for quite a while. When we are talking "1/2 earth" routes, going WAY out of the way isn't really doing much to the overall distance. Keeping within ETOPS 240 on many of these routes adds under 100nm to the trip, and depending on the winds, the route you'd be forced to choose might have been the route you wanted anyway.
Add to that the desire to avoid overflight of certain countries, and ETOPS 330 really only matters for certain routes in the Southern Hemisphere. For QF, which has committed to the 787, relaxed ETOPS is very important, though they can still cover all those routes with current quads and future quads. Rather than dump their newest 744s, QF can use those on ETOPS 207+ routes along with some A380s. The rest of their route system could function with the 787 even with current ETOPS rules.
But it does explain why SAA remains committed to the A340 and 747. It just makes their life easier. The new non-twin ETOPS rules will cause SAA some added concern. Wonder if they are fighting them??
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
SunriseValley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 3952 posts, RR: 4 Reply 19, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 2238 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 18): The new non-twin ETOPS rules will cause SAA some added concern. Wonder if they are fighting them??
Ikramerica raises an interesting issue. Not picking on SAA, but carriers as well as the type have to be certified for ETOPS and LROPS. Some carriers probably can't make it, if I recollect correctly there have been one or two that have lost their ETOPS rating for certain types. Also the rating is given by the regulator in the country in which the carrier is domiciled. It is difficult to know how the regulator in one country differs in their standards from the regulator in another. So I wonder how uniform the administration of the standard is.
A350 From Germany, joined Nov 2004, 1098 posts, RR: 23 Reply 20, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 2167 times:
Quoting SunriseValley (Reply 19): Also the rating is given by the regulator in the country in which the carrier is domiciled. It is difficult to know how the regulator in one country differs in their standards from the regulator in another. So I wonder how uniform the administration of the standard is.
It would be possible to set up something like an ISO standard. Yes, it wouldn't be legally binding, but in the reality of business live, it would be very difficult to get around.
A350
Photography - the art of observing, not the art of arranging
OldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3206 posts, RR: 66 Reply 21, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 2076 times:
Quoting SunriseValley (Reply 19): Not picking on SAA, but carriers as well as the type have to be certified for ETOPS and LROPS. Some carriers probably can't make it,
And these are the carriers I would avoid since ETOPS qualification is primarily based on maintenance practices. If they can't get ETOPS, you wonder how well they are maintaining the rest of the their fleet. The ETOPS requirements aren't that tough.
Quoting A350 (Reply 20): It would be possible to set up something like an ISO standard. Yes, it wouldn't be legally binding, but in the reality of business live, it would be very difficult to get around.
This is why ICAO exists.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined May 2006, 991 posts, 
From Panama, joined Dec 2004, 639 posts, 
From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 5721 posts, 
From Spain, joined Apr 2006, 843 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
.
From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 3952 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
