Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Etops 330 Close To Approval?  
User currently offlinePolymerPlane From United States of America, joined May 2006, 991 posts, RR: 3
Posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 5443 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precise flight planning and routing make a requirement that aircraft carry large fuel reserves on long-haul flights outdated.

http://today.reuters.com/summit/summ...TING_reuters_aero_n_defense_summit

I am not sure whether it is ETOPS 330 or any other measure.

Cheers,
PP


One day there will be 100% polymer plane
21 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineCM767 From Panama, joined Dec 2004, 654 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 5302 times:

More info at:

http://news.airwise.com/story/view/1165491658.html

"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  Smile



But The Best Thing God Has Created Is A New Day
User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 22993 posts, RR: 20
Reply 2, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 5270 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
User currently offlineDAL767400ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 5188 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).


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21527 posts, RR: 59
Reply 4, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 5155 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.
User currently offlineSKY1 From Spain, joined Apr 2006, 879 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 5135 times:

In some sense the ETOPS 240' and 330' are linked with the LROPS regulations.

I don't think in a short term both can be approved



Time flies! Enjoy life!
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 5100 times:

Seems it is nearly three years delayed. Boeing planned it for early 2004.

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2003/q4/nr_031015g.html


User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 22993 posts, RR: 20
Reply 7, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 4956 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
User currently offlineDAL767400ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 4807 times:

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 7):
I think JFK-SYD can be operated pretty much on the great circle route with 240,

That's true, but I was talking about JFK-AKL, not JFK-SYD  Wink .


User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 22993 posts, RR: 20
Reply 9, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 4594 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
User currently offlineTimz From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 6835 posts, RR: 6
Reply 10, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 4509 times:

240 minutes ... are we figuring that's 1600 nm, or more?

I'll check, but offhand I'm guessing the within-1600-nm route JFK-AKL is less than 100 miles longer than the great circle.


User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 22993 posts, RR: 20
Reply 11, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 4405 times:

It's less than 20 miles longer. Pretty negligible.


I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineTimz From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 6835 posts, RR: 6
Reply 12, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 4306 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).

(That point is 6.385895 N, 131.283506 W)


User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 22993 posts, RR: 20
Reply 13, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 4243 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
User currently offlineTimz From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 6835 posts, RR: 6
Reply 14, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 4067 times:

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 13):
staying within 1600 nm on JNB-SYD adds about 220 nm to the trip

Staying within 1600 nm of ... Diego Garcia?

Also, I forgot about Hao-- if its 11000 ft runway is an allowed alternate then the AKL-JFK great circle is never beyond 1600 nm.

[Edited 2006-12-09 21:58:50]

User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 15, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 4051 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.


User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 22993 posts, RR: 20
Reply 16, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 4010 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
User currently offlineSunriseValley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4982 posts, RR: 5
Reply 17, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 3921 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.

User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21527 posts, RR: 59
Reply 18, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3833 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.
User currently offlineSunriseValley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4982 posts, RR: 5
Reply 19, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 3800 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.


User currently offlineA350 From Germany, joined Nov 2004, 1100 posts, RR: 22
Reply 20, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 3729 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
User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3523 posts, RR: 66
Reply 21, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 3638 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
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...
Air Malta Aligning Close To Star Alliance posted Tue Nov 28 2006 07:09:56 by Jimyvr
PIA Close To RIP? posted Mon Nov 20 2006 12:58:25 by Oly720man
FAT 757 Fly Too Close To TG Plane: Hit Turbulence posted Thu Nov 16 2006 06:56:37 by Jimyvr
Air China Close To Signing For 10 B777's posted Mon Oct 30 2006 13:54:13 by UA777300ER
CRJ-900X Close To Launch posted Thu Oct 19 2006 23:08:49 by YULspotter
I Came Close To A Jet Today! posted Tue Oct 17 2006 15:16:50 by Newagebird
NWA - How Close To BK Exit? posted Mon Oct 16 2006 22:01:09 by DeltaDAWG
Hot: Embraer And Varig Close To Deal 4 Embraer 190 posted Wed Sep 6 2006 03:52:26 by LipeGIG
Mexicana Close To Airbus Order posted Fri Aug 25 2006 03:37:57 by Manni
MIA May Close 'A' To Speed Up North Terminal Project posted Thu Aug 10 2006 17:30:36 by DB777