777x From United States of America, joined Dec 2014, 333 posts, RR: 0 Posted (14 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2423 times:
For those of you that are interested, the current issue of Airways has an interesting article on the new CO 777 EWR-HKG Polar route flight.
Among other things it notes that the 777-200ER that CO uses can fly the route (~7300nm) without any payload restrictions year round, except in cases of extreme headwind. It also talks a bit about the Cargo suppression system installed, with provision for 222 minutes of cargo fire suppression, a feature not provided for in 747s/A340s that fly on the route. Makes me feel better flying on an ETOPS twin than a non ETOPS quad.
Kaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 13016 posts, RR: 34
Reply 4, posted (14 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2356 times:
As CALPilot said, ETOPS is an acronym and it is basically the regulatory procedure (laid down by the FAA for US airlines and others for their own airlines) to allow twin engined aircraft to divert more than a certain amount from a suitable alternate when operating extended range flights. CALPilot is quite correct in saying it's not only over-water flights; certain trips over land require such rules to be followed - for example, the trans-siberian route from Europe to Tokyo, where there would be few suitable diversion airports available. In practice, about 90% of ETOPS flights are over water.
The diversions started at about 60 minutes, then went up to 90 with the 767 back in the mid 1980s; it was really the 767 which gave birth to the proliferation of extended range twin ops we now see and the allowable diversion time has now gone through 120 mins, 138, 180, 207 and, as you've seen with the 777, 222 minutes - or nearly 4 hours! (The reason they choose "odd" figures like 138 and 207 is to fit in with actual transatlantic routes.)
Of course, cynics might say it stands for Engines Turning Or Passengers Swimming, but thankfully we have none of those on airliners.net!