Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
ETOPS Increased To 330 Minutes For 777 Operators  
User currently offlineMSN007 From United States of America, joined Sep 2009, 127 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 29971 times:

The FAA extension is for 777-300ER, 777-200LR. 777-200ER with GE engines and 777 freighters. The 777-200ER with Rolls-Royce and Pratt & Whitney engines is expected to follow over the next few months.

http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=2070

136 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineukoverlander From United Kingdom, joined May 2010, 369 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 29759 times:

Technologically, it's amazing that the standard of reliability is such that such a thing can be approved with confidence but............If I'm flying from Melbourne to Cape Town and we lose one engine on our 777 half way across the Indian Ocean, then I'd to be shifting (possible a typo  ) uncomfortably in my seat for a very long time.

See map:

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=MEL-JNB&MS=bm&MP=p&DU=mi&E=330

[Edited 2011-12-12 14:54:43]

[Edited 2011-12-12 14:55:09]

User currently onlinekiwiandrew From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 8572 posts, RR: 13
Reply 2, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 29609 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ukoverlander (Reply 1):
If I'm flying from Melbourne to Cape Town and we lose one engine on our 777 half way across the Indian Ocean

Don't worry, CASA, the Aussie authority, will completely ignore this and stick to their own ETOPS rules so you won't be travelling that route on a 777 with ETOPS/EDTO 330 any time soon.



Moderation in all things ... including moderation ;-)
User currently onlineB777LRF From Luxembourg, joined Nov 2008, 1368 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 29606 times:

Reminds of me of an old and wise man who once said "Just because it's possible doesn't mean it's clever". I much prefer 4-engined aeroplanes, and that's only because nobody's got a 5, 6, 7 or 8 engined option.

ETOPS = Engines Turn Or Passengers Swim



From receips and radials over straight pipes to big fans - been there, done that, got the hearing defects to prove
User currently offlinenotaxonrotax From Ecuador, joined Mar 2011, 429 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 29528 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Cool!
How about B787 / A330?

Quoting ukoverlander (Reply 1):
then I'd to be shifting (possible a typo &nbsp Wink

Hard to beat the Brits when it comes to language........although I'd be just shifting, not the other thing.
What are the bloody odds of 2 donks calling it a day, that very same flight?
You, or your neighbor; must be urgently required "up there" if that were to happen!

No Tax On Rotax



For anybdoy that happens to be wondering:"yes, owning your own aircraft is a 100% worth it!"
User currently offlineaerorobnz From Rwanda, joined Feb 2001, 7210 posts, RR: 13
Reply 5, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 29406 times:

The fact is that just because the airframe is endorsed from the factory doesn't mean the airline taking delivery of that airframe can just start flying EDTO 330 everywhere. There is much more to it than that - which isn't exactly spelt out in the press release. A new airline will not just be granted to fly a 330 route solely because they have a 777-300ER.

Take AKL-GRU for example. If Air New Zealand started to fly the route, it would be required to maintain to Boeing standards, and adhere to both New Zealand and Brazilian air traffic/maintenance restrictions placed on them over and above the Boeing standard which usually include the previous operating history of EDTO/ETOPS with the aircraft type etc etc.

Personally I have absolutely qualms about flying on a twin that far over water on one engine.. to get there an airline will have to jump through many hoops.


User currently offlinespacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3629 posts, RR: 12
Reply 6, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 29261 times:

180, 240, 330... these all seem like totally arbitrary numbers. If engine reliability really is as good as everyone says, what possible difference would it make if you fly 330 minutes or 180 minutes? Why wouldn't every 777 that's ETOPs rated be rated to 330 minutes? Or 400 minutes? Or 10,000 minutes?


I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3649 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 29245 times:

Ah heck no, this could convince SQ to buy 77L, to change their A345 service from SIN to LAX to 77L.

User currently offlinepolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2215 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 29220 times:

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 7):
Ah heck no, this could convince SQ to buy 77L, to change their A345 service from SIN to LAX to 77L.

ETOPS really hasn't been the thing preventing SQ from replacing the A345s, rather it has been the high costs of acquiring the 77L and the low value of the A345 in the used market.


User currently offlinemffoda From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1075 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 29199 times:

Quoting kiwiandrew (Reply 2):
Quoting ukoverlander (Reply 1):
If I'm flying from Melbourne to Cape Town and we lose one engine on our 777 half way across the Indian Ocean

Don't worry, CASA, the Aussie authority, will completely ignore this and stick to their own ETOPS rules so you won't be travelling that route on a 777 with ETOPS/EDTO 330 any time soon.

Nor do you have to worry about it being a Qantas 777.... 



harder than woodpecker lips...
User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6924 posts, RR: 46
Reply 10, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 29080 times:

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 3):
I much prefer 4-engined aeroplanes, and that's only because nobody's got a 5, 6, 7 or 8 engined option.

Actually, your chances of an uncontained failure (which is the most likely cause of an engine related crash) is directly related to the number of engines. Twice as many engines, twice the chance of an uncontained failure. The chance of two unrelated engine failures on the the same flight is so low it can't be measured, as it has never, ever happened, not even on 8 engined planes. I will happily fly on a 777 to any point on the globe.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21534 posts, RR: 59
Reply 11, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 29048 times:

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 10):
Actually, your chances of an uncontained failure (which is the most likely cause of an engine related crash) is directly related to the number of engines. Twice as many engines, twice the chance of an uncontained failure. The chance of two unrelated engine failures on the the same flight is so low it can't be measured, as it has never, ever happened, not even on 8 engined planes. I will happily fly on a 777 to any point on the globe.

While I agree that the chances of two unrelated engine failures happening on the same flight are low, that it has never happened isn't proof it won't. After all, for a variety of failure modes, after the first failure, you look for a suitable diversion point, limiting the time in flight for that second unrelated failure to occur. By increasing the legal distance before suitable diversion to 330 minutes, you nearly double the odds of that second failure happening in those 330 minutes compared to 180/207.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlinePC12Fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2445 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 29025 times:

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 3):

That's your philosophy? Then you need to reconsider your user name.



Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9661 posts, RR: 52
Reply 13, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 29009 times:

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 6):
180, 240, 330... these all seem like totally arbitrary numbers. If engine reliability really is as good as everyone says, what possible difference would it make if you fly 330 minutes or 180 minutes? Why wouldn't every 777 that's ETOPs rated be rated to 330 minutes? Or 400 minutes? Or 10,000 minutes?

The numbers actually do mean something. They are based on statistical probabilities. I think to maintain ETOPS a fleet has to have less than 1 shutdown every 100,000 flight hours (someone will correct me if that number is wrong). The probability rates of two independent failures are reduced through an ETOPS program. They drop down to what is an adequately low number 1 x 10^-12 probability of a dual engine failure (again someone will correct me if I am wrong). The 777 fleet has to prove that it does perform at that level of reliability with the required maintenance programs in place in order for an airline to get ETOPS 330. If their in flight failure rate is higher than the max threshold, then they may only qualify for a lower ETOPS rating.

Each higher ETOPS rating comes with stricter maintenance and design requirements. It doesn't come free. Not every 777 is going to be ETOPS 330. In fact, there are probably some 777s in the air right now that don't meet ETOPS requirements due to deferred maintenance, recent maintenance work not within specification, excessively high in flight shutdown rate, etc.

A lot of design engineering work goes on behind the scenes to create those numbers. If you think 180, 240 or 330 are strange, some airlines are ETOPS 138 and ETOPS 207.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4556 posts, RR: 19
Reply 14, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 28914 times:

The real question here is:



Does this new 330 minute authority mean that the 777 is restricted from operating in any remaining area of the world ?



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineaerorobnz From Rwanda, joined Feb 2001, 7210 posts, RR: 13
Reply 15, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 28853 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 14):
Does this new 330 minute authority mean that the 777 is restricted from operating in any remaining area of the world ?

The answer is no. Other than Antarctica of course, but all the continents where people live it opens up all the existing gaps.


User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 28807 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 14):
Does this new 330 minute authority mean that the 777 is restricted from operating in any remaining area of the world ?

Yes:
http://gc.kls2.com/cgi-bin/gc?PATH=a...GE-COLOR=navy&MAP-STYLE=&ETOPS=330


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31060 posts, RR: 87
Reply 17, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 28782 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting notaxonrotax (Reply 4):
How about B787 / A330?

The A330-200 has had ETOPS-240 since 2009, but I could not find anything stating it's certified for ETOPS-330.

Both engine options for the 787 are certified for ETOPS-330, however the engines+airframe package will not be certified for ETOPS-330 until Boeing introduces a software fix for the flight deck's fuel quantity indicator, which is expected in 2012.


User currently onlinekiwiandrew From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 8572 posts, RR: 13
Reply 18, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 28751 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Max Q (Reply 14):
Does this new 330 minute authority mean that the 777 is restricted from operating in any remaining area of the world ?

Yes, because not every civil aviation authority in every country is going to recognise this standard for every airline.



Moderation in all things ... including moderation ;-)
User currently offlineMSN007 From United States of America, joined Sep 2009, 127 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 28690 times:

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 3):
ETOPS = Engines Turn Or Passengers Swim

I am laughing uncontrollably   

Quoting kiwiandrew (Reply 2):
Don't worry, CASA, the Aussie authority, will completely ignore this and stick to their own ETOPS rules so you won't be travelling that route on a 777 with ETOPS/EDTO 330 any time soon.

I did not know every region have it's own ETOPS rules so if that's the case how do airlines determine which ETOPS to follow?


User currently offlineaerorobnz From Rwanda, joined Feb 2001, 7210 posts, RR: 13
Reply 20, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 28537 times:

Quoting MSN007 (Reply 19):
I did not know every region have it's own ETOPS rules so if that's the case how do airlines determine which ETOPS to follow?

The airline is governed by their nations version of FAA in addition to the Boeing standard set by the Manufacturer. The airline is also governed by the restrictions set by the destination of a particular flight. ie: AKLLAX governed by NZ & US regs, MEL-CPT Australian and South African regs etc etc.


User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 28417 times:

Quoting MSN007 (Reply 19):
I did not know every region have it's own ETOPS rules so if that's the case how do airlines determine which ETOPS to follow?
Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 20):

The airline is governed by their nations version of FAA in addition to the Boeing standard set by the Manufacturer. The airline is also governed by the restrictions set by the destination of a particular flight. ie: AKLLAX governed by NZ & US regs, MEL-CPT Australian and South African regs etc etc.

My understanding is that in most cases the airline is governed by the rules of the country it's AOC is issued from, and that second countries will accept that country's certification under ICAO treaties. There are exceptions where both (or all three) countries might need to approve, such as flying south of 60 degrees S.

Not sure where ETOPS-330 fits in to the above though. Similarly with ETOPS-240. ETOPS-180 would be generally accepted AIUI.


User currently offlinewarden145 From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 522 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 28403 times:

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 11):
While I agree that the chances of two unrelated engine failures happening on the same flight are low, that it has never happened isn't proof it won't. After all, for a variety of failure modes, after the first failure, you look for a suitable diversion point, limiting the time in flight for that second unrelated failure to occur. By increasing the legal distance before suitable diversion to 330 minutes, you nearly double the odds of that second failure happening in those 330 minutes compared to 180/207.

   I've said it before, and I'll say it again...no matter how hard we try, nothing man-made is perfect, and as lkramerica said, just because two unrelated engine failures hasn't happened yet doesn't mean that it never will. And, frankly, IMHO when you're 5+ hours away from land (or even 2 hours), redundancies are a good thing.

I think I've made my opinion on ETOPS well known, so not much point in reiterating my opinion...but I do have this question to ask: Would you rather be on a 747/A380/A340 with two engines out, or a 777/A330 with two engines out?



ETOPS = Engine Turns Off, Passengers Swim
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15749 posts, RR: 27
Reply 23, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 28339 times:

Quoting notaxonrotax (Reply 4):
What are the bloody odds of 2 donks calling it a day, that very same flight?

Probably about the same as getting struck by lightning on the day you win the lottery.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinegemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5682 posts, RR: 6
Reply 24, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 28330 times:

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 20):
Quoting MSN007 (Reply 19):
I did not know every region have it's own ETOPS rules so if that's the case how do airlines determine which ETOPS to follow?

The airline is governed by their nations version of FAA in addition to the Boeing standard set by the Manufacturer. The airline is also governed by the restrictions set by the destination of a particular flight. ie: AKLLAX governed by NZ & US regs, MEL-CPT Australian and South African regs etc etc.

Basically every nation that is a signatory to the Chicago Convention and is a member of ICAO agrees to follow ICAO rules and standards AND to allow airlines of other countries to follow ICAO rules/standards as administered by their national aviation authority, while within the airspace of the country.

The problem with ETOPS, as I understand it, is that ETOPS >180 is NOT an ICAO rule/standard, so each country must approve ETOPS >180 within their airspace. Australia and New Zealand have done so, NZ is a very clear and precise manner. Australia has done a "Sir Humphrey" and made their requirement so opaque as to be unmeetable without considerable political interference.

I would not be holding my breath for any ETOPS >180 operations within Australian airspace!

Gemuser



DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
25 Alnicocunife : Besides what are the odd of both engines quitting? Air Transat Airbus A330. Lack of fuel? Something other than the engines usually causes diversions w
26 kiwiandrew : Yes, but that was not both engines quitting from unrelated causes. If it had been a quad and it ran out of fuel then there would have been 4 dead eng
27 BMI727 : In that case the aircraft could have landed safely on one engine. The pilots exacerbated the problem with the nearly fatal error of shifting fuel int
28 Post contains images peanuts : A volcanic ash cloud? But we've learned from the past that 4 holers would likely suffer a similar fate in these scenarios. Instead of trying to resta
29 YULWinterSkies : B787 is probably still too new for this certification. Keep in mind ETOPS is a lot based on previous performance. A330 is not a long-hauler to the ex
30 ikramerica : Neither. I'm not against ETOPS 330. I was just pointing out that with the vast majority of engine out situations, planes divert quickly (even tris an
31 tdscanuck : They're not...as nicely described by RoseFlyer, they fall out of the fault tree analysis for the probability of a catastrophic event. If you fly twic
32 Post contains images lightsaber : However, for resale value, 777s are maintained to ETOPS standards as a rule. The big risks for long haul, in my opinion are now: 1. Need for a 'time
33 LimaNiner : I think the scarier question is how much gas do you have left when one engine fails 330 minutes "normal" flight time from the nearest airport, and ho
34 thegeek : What happens if you lose pressurisation 5 hours from an airport? Descend to FL100? That would require huge amounts of fuel reserves if heading west on
35 Post contains images Tdan : Green light now for NZ to start AKL-GRU with their -300ERs
36 um78 : You May be right but... The first airline to purchase the new longer ETOPS option is Air New Zealand. Air New Zealand completed the first 240 ETOPS f
37 tozairport : Also: Enticing Treats for our Pacific Sharks!
38 Post contains images kiwiandrew : That's because we aren't ruled from Australia
39 QANTAS747-438 : I thought the 777 was already 330min ETOPS? If not, then what was it prior to this announcement?
40 alphaomega : Very true, so the FAA ETOPS 330 certification (until other CAA's follow) is really only currently good for DL (77Ls), FX (77Fs), and CO (772s)...UA a
41 gemuser : But only in USA and international air space. See Reply 24 and others above. Because ETOPS >180 is not ICAO approved it requires approval from each
42 nomadd22 : I was personally on a C-130 from Anchorage to McChord that lost an engine due to hydraulics and shortly afterwards lost another from an unrelated oil
43 garpd : I'm glad you corrected yourself. Not many birds can be found at the same alt as a cruising airliner. Also, a large enough flock of birds can just as
44 Burkhard : I do not buy this argument. On a twin of same size the power per engine is far higher than on a quad, obviously so is the energy released and the dam
45 seabosdca : This has to be taken into account when planning any ETOPS flight, whether 90 or 330.
46 KC135TopBoom : It has happened many times before including; EA-855 (L-1011) TS-236 (A-330) UA-173 (DC-8) AC-143 (B-767, "Gimli Glider") US-1549 (A-320, "Mirical on
47 Mark2Fly1034 : What airports does Delta use on its LR flights down to SYD for ETOPS there cant be that many or anything on the way down there?
48 polot : None of those, at least the ones I am familiar of, are examples of two unrelated engine failures. Examples of total engine failures due to a related
49 tdscanuck : ETOPS testing is done with actual failures, in the sense that you really do shut down the systems in question. True, you can restart it in an emergen
50 seabosdca : You are overlooking the word "unrelated" in SEPilot's post. That's critical because multiple related engine failures would likely (as we see in the t
51 PC12Fan : Interesting - never knew that.
52 JAAlbert : Looking out the plane window seven hours into a ten or twelve hour flight, I am always amazed at how reliable the engine is hanging under the wing. Th
53 Flighty : ETOPS uses methods that are hard to argue with. It simply is not a safety risk... if anything, you might die more often on a quad...
54 Revo1059 : So if you are at say FL380 and manage to pop both engines (assuming no other damage and you still have control) on average how far can you glide? Have
55 Post contains images FlyASAGuy2005 : Of course Otherwise, what would be the point. Dispatch sends you out with enough fuel for the worst case scenario. Including flying on 1 engine to yo
56 enilria : ...and what if the failures are not independent? Certainly one failure could cause another by setting off a fire, for example. It could also happen a
57 nomadd22 : I didn't say they couldn't take out four. But when you look at how many single engines have been shut down by bird strikes compared to how often two
58 seabosdca : If the engine fails above V1, any twin can take off and climb fully loaded on one engine. It's a certification requirement. If the engine fails below
59 777STL : There's actually a lot down there once you get down to the south Pacific. 180 ETOPs easily covers the entire route for LAX-SYD.
60 ikramerica : No, it's simulated. Shutting down a system is not the same as losing a system in flight. It might be close, but it's still simulated. Granted, a real
61 ScottB : Generally, a lot lower than the chances of a fire on the aircraft. And that also includes anticipated headwinds, as well as higher fuel consumption d
62 deconz : specifically HNL, APW, NAN, NOU come to mind
63 Flighty : A vigorous fire or explosion would bring down any current aircraft. You can't go on flying hundreds of miles. They will be fueled for depressurizatio
64 kiwiandrew : I believe under EDTO the distinction between quads and twins ceases to exist and quads, after the expiry of a grandfather period, ( which IIRC is onl
65 enilria : Doesn't have to be vigorous, just enough to damage the wiring leading to two engines. Do they really include enough fuel to fly at an altitude low en
66 Post contains images Revelation : Kinda cool the map lets you select multiple ETOPS bands. Here it is for every half hour from 120 to 240 plus 330.
67 Longhauler : Pretty small perhaps, but yes it has happened. As noted above, it is related, but an Eastern L188 ran into a flock of starlings after takeoff from BO
68 yellowtail : Maybe LA might like some LRs for SYD, JNB etc. They already have the F's in the fleet so the pax version would be easy to absorb.
69 seachaz : So given other local gov regulations, does this open up any new routes for existing 777 operators? Ignoring other gov regulations and exiting fleets,
70 kiwiandrew : Maybe for JNB, but as has already been mentioned in the thread CASA in Australia take a very conservative view towards ETOPS/EDTO so don't expect SYD
71 Post contains images SKY1 : Boeing --and the engines manufacturers-- may be at last be pleased because their long-target from 10 years ago has finally been achieved. But it have
72 rwessel : Large airliners have best L/D's somewhere in the 20:1 range. So theoretically 38000ft*20, or about 125nm. In sailplanes we normally use half that num
73 thegeek : What's the chance of there being an AKL-GRU flight in the future? Would NZ be the most likely to fly it? That part is correct, however the actual dive
74 thegeek : Could that be affected by the possibility of using an alternate field like LIH?
75 tdscanuck : Yes. That's true of almost all twins (you need to be really overpowered for it to not be true). It's all accounted for when you do the diversion fuel
76 thegeek : Never heard that before, are you sure? Besides, unless you believe there is an increased chance of restarting the engines at the lower altitude (as i
77 rwessel : There's only about a 10 minute O2 supply for the passengers on board.
78 kiwiandrew : In one sense I would argue that twins can actually be safer than quads. Imagine El Al 1862 with a 777F rather than a 742F. ( For those who don't remem
79 thegeek : That's virtually enough. Air Transat was descending at 2k ft/min from FL330 = 11.5 minute descent to FL100. Not sure how quickly the pressurisation f
80 kiwiandrew : Hard to say, there were certainly parallels, but the root causes were not identical from what I recall. In any case, I was using them more as an illu
81 rwessel : Best glide is likely to be around 250kts, or around 1250ft/min at the assumed 20:1. 38000ft to 14000ft would take more like 19 minutes at best glide.
82 ThrottleHold : Failure of all engines won't lead immediately to an emergency descent. With no thrust available, altitude is your new fuel. You don't want to be thro
83 Zkpilot : Almost happened very recently... a QF 744 from NRT to SYD had an engine eat itself without the pilots realising how bad it was, on the same flight an
84 cmf : IIRC the problem wasn't the loss of two engines but the damage to the wing. It wasn't until they dropped speed the wing damage became significant eno
85 tdscanuck : Nobody claimed there were no cases of multiple engine failure; the claim (still unrefuted) is no cases of multiple * independent* engine failure on a
86 thegeek : This one goes pretty close to refuting it: Not a jet, but still a turbine aircraft. Also anecdotal rather than documentary evidence. Equally, you can
87 dxing : I guess you're assuming the APU has also been disabled? Because if even one engine is disabled the APU will be fired up to provide back up power and
88 tdscanuck : Relatively few APU's can provide full bleed power at cruise altitude...they'll keep the electronics going and have enough oomph to help an engine alo
89 OldAeroGuy : If both engines are inop at cruise altitude, running out of fuel is one of two usual reasons (foreign object ingestion, either ice or ash is the othe
90 kiwiandrew : True, but again, in those situations you are in deep doggy doo whether you are in a twin or a quad.
91 PITrules : How about the Kalitta 747 crash in BOG? I admit its been a while since I've seen any news on this accident; the most recent report I was able to find
92 Post contains images SEPilot : Yes, it can happen, but so can an airliner being hit by a meteor. I suspect the two are about equally likely, and do not intend to worry about either
93 Zkpilot : It happens very rapidly once the oil runs out... especially if the reason for the oil running out is that the engine is using excessive amounts of it
94 thegeek : And perhaps both of the remaining engines are on the same side requiring a lot of rudder further worsening mileage. Is this sort of case considered i
95 Longhauler : It is unlikely anyone is going to come up with a case not already studied to death by the Engineers at Boeing, Airbus, Embraer, etc etc. But ... it m
96 thegeek : No kidding, but they have to draw the line somewhere and say that "x" level of failures is what we will calculate for. Two engines out on the same si
97 PITrules :
98 kiwiandrew : Were they unrelated failures? I have tried searching but cannot seem to find a definitive report on the crash?
99 PITrules : I've seen two theories on this crash 1) First engine died, and the crew followed procedure and advanced the other engines to MCT considering their en
100 Ldriver : Is there a need for any ETOPS restriction? Here's how I look at it: Assuming one chance in 50,000 of losing an engine per hour at cruise, then the cha
101 Longhauler : I understand what you mean. There are always additional circumstances that can cause problems. But, we are talking ETOPS rules here and engine reliab
102 aerorobnz : Yes. It stops the mickey mouse airlines buying twins and flying them on routes with no diversion options, without meeting any requirements whatsoever
103 SEPilot : There is no definitive information that I can find as to what really caused the engines to fail, and hence it cannot be conclusively shown that the f
104 dxing : With the loss of one engine there will be a descent to whatever altitude the aircraft can hold at whatever weight the incident happens at, so my thou
105 fpetrutiu : I think this increase will make one particular airline happy. I am talking about EK and their US west coast routes. This will make it easier in routin
106 SKY1 : In the event of engine failure or a serius emergency, it's true APU is not key mechanism ...even an APU not working is not a "no-go" on the MEL, but i
107 tdscanuck : Why would EK care? Even with ETOPS180 there are no holes in the northern hemisphere...it shouldn't be providing any routing restrictions for them fro
108 Post contains images klaus : After the first has already failed, for the second engine the probability is simply the same as it was for the first – actually somewhat higher due
109 DocLightning : If you lose all four engines on a quad in an ash cloud, you are likely to descend to a very low altitude before you get any of them back up and runni
110 dxing : This is exactly why it is not smart to overfly an ash cloud that the aircraft cannot 1. remain above in a non-etops environment on a single engine, 2
111 yeelep : As with most things, there are no absolutes. For example, the 737NG cannot have the APU on MEL and conduct ETOPS flights.
112 ikramerica : I think I should explain better what I wrote way earlier. ETOPS 180/207 has been around for quite a while. There are many cases of diversions close to
113 OldAeroGuy : Not really. Only the 773ER for an MTOW takeoff starts cruise at FL280 or so. At lighter weights, it starts cruise above FL300, as do all other 777 mo
114 klaus : Only by kilometers covered, not by number of trips, which would be the more realistic metric.
115 tdscanuck : I expect air travel is still ahead even on a per trip basis...almost all of us know someone injured in a car accident, almost none of us know someone
116 rwessel : I'm not sure it is. Just counting fatal accidents, there are about 1.5 per 100 million miles driven, and about .18 per million flight segments. That
117 ikramerica : AA DFW-NRT our initial cruising altitude was FL2X0 and we did not move up over FL300 for a few hours. Of commercial passenger jets, top tier (etops e
118 dxing : That could have been for a variety of reasons having nothing to do with take off weight. I've maxed out 777's many times and never been limited to th
119 OldAeroGuy : Enroute winds (especially on a west bound flight) could have been the reason for your low cruise altitude.
120 PPVRA : Has there ever been a case of an aircraft losing all engines for unrelated reasons? I never heard of one, though I suppose if we go back to the earlie
121 ikramerica : No doubt. The point was that cruising in the FL2X0s is not a huge detriment to performance, and it's even possible that it's desirable on some routes
122 rwessel : .18 fatal accidents per million flight segments is on scheduled US commercial airlines (IOW, part 121 operations). GA stats are on the order of 30 ti
123 Post contains images lightsaber : Lots of discussion. It appears some do not like ETOPS no matter the safety. Some of the ETOPS discussion here belongs under LROPS where there is a set
124 Post contains links thegeek : Hate to bring this up, but there was a QF 747 approaching BKK which lost all generators simultaneously (engines still running) due to water in all th
125 thegeek : ETOPS procedures would not allow this right? If, for some reason a plane needed to have work done on both engines between turns, I would presume that
126 tdscanuck : Depends on the engine...I've done a couple of 18 hour flights and, although there is noticeable oil burn, it's nowhere close to running out. But fair
127 SEPilot : To the best of my knowledge, there has never been a case (unless the Kalitta BOG crash turns out to be) a case of two unrelated engine failures on th
128 yeelep : In the US ETOPS now includes tri's and quad's, and covers all the above items and more. Yes both filters could be replaced by one mechanic and then f
129 ikramerica : Makes sense. Fatal accidents or .18 deaths per million segments? Either way, the odds of you dying in a plane crash is less than 1 in a million, each
130 Post contains images lightsaber : Correct. It wasn't approved. It wasn't inspected. It was a slip that almost caused a crash. But as I noted, this individual would have mis-changed th
131 thegeek : Probably should be required for part 121 ops generally, not just extended ops.
132 rwessel : .18 fatal accidents per million segments. Actual numbers of deaths per fatal accident is rather higher than one for airliners, but pretty close to on
133 Post contains images SEPilot : If that were true, there would be at least 300 lightning deaths per year in the US; the figure is 62 on average. The fact is that however you want to
134 ikramerica : Sorry, that was the odds of being hit, not being killed. Odds of being killed is about 1 in 5 if hit. So .2 in a million. That's why you have to do i
135 Ldriver : It is hard to think a safer form of transport, but it does depend somewhat on the purpose of the comparison. For example, a common saying after landi
136 tdscanuck : If airliners were as common as cars the accident rate would still be far lower than automobiles (although the publicity would, obviously, be far high
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...
Boeing To Pay Millions To Air NZ For 777 Delays. posted Thu Sep 8 2005 22:52:20 by Trolley Dolley
Rumor! AV To Cancel 787 / Switch For 777 posted Tue Aug 31 2010 12:57:29 by danimarroquin
AF Lost It's 180 Min Etops For 777.. posted Wed Nov 28 2007 13:48:10 by Beaucaire
A Contribution To 330 Vs 777 posted Tue Apr 4 2006 22:01:38 by Macc
Gulf Air Wants To Opt For 777 And Not A380 posted Tue Jun 19 2001 14:37:06 by GF-A330
What Are UA Plans For 777 Replacement? posted Fri Nov 18 2011 12:38:04 by lesismore
Kenya Airways To Lease Two Boeing 777-300ER posted Wed Oct 12 2011 12:37:37 by mffoda
Qatar To Delay IPO, To Use GTL For Half Its Fleet posted Wed Oct 5 2011 14:34:45 by QatarA340
Up To 15 A380 For Skymark? posted Tue Dec 21 2010 11:55:35 by FCKC
MIA-MUC Reduced To 4X Weekly For Rest Of December? posted Thu Dec 16 2010 11:37:57 by miaintl
Up To 15 A380 For Skymark? posted Tue Dec 21 2010 11:55:35 by FCKC