Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Etops Question  
User currently offlineAirWillie6475 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 2448 posts, RR: 1
Posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 4539 times:

Hey what does ETOPS mean?

Just kidding. Actually my question is what do airlines do or what are their procedures when a plane has a depressurization as a result of the loss of an engine while they are in ETOPS area, especially if they are at later stages when they might not have a lot of fuel left to burn at lower levels.

31 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineFr8Mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5383 posts, RR: 14
Reply 1, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 4532 times:

Why would the loss of an engine cause the aircraft to depressurize? Redundant engineering prevents that from happening. It would require multiple failures. For your scenario you would need:

1) An engine failure
2) An opposite engine pnuematic failure
3) An APU bleed failure

To answer your question, I believe all ETOPS calculations take into account a lower altitude.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently onlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17014 posts, RR: 67
Reply 2, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 4493 times:

Quoting Fr8Mech (Reply 1):
To answer your question, I believe all ETOPS calculations take into account a lower altitude.

And speed. For example, if a 777 loses an engine it probably cannot maintain its current cruise altitude and speed with that much less power available. So it will have to go lower anyway. In the event of a pressurization failure coupled with the engine failure (as Fr8Mech explains, this is extremely unlikely) the aircraft would go lower still until the air was thick enough. However, you're talking one in a zillion chances here. It's probably more likely that the other engine quits, and ETOPS rules "accept" that risk as it is.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineAirfoilsguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 4491 times:

Quoting AirWillie6475 (Thread starter):
Hey what does ETOPS mean?

Engines
Turn
Or
People
Swim

 Smile


User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 4, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 4481 times:

There are two major categories of answer for your question.

1. ETOPS on the NAT tracks.
2. ETOPS on random route elsewhere in the world.

Remember that there are alternate airports for the ETOPS portion that meet the rule in use, 120 minute, 180 minute etc. These places are not your filed destination but are well short of that. From Europe to the US over the north Atlantic for example, you pass mid-ocean less than one third of the way to your destination.

My point is that if you are no longer continuing to Munich but are diverting to back to Gander then you have tons of surplus fuel to burn in an engine-out, lower FL cruise to the alternate.



Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offlineMrocktor From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1668 posts, RR: 50
Reply 5, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 4415 times:

Quoting Fr8Mech (Reply 1):
Why would the loss of an engine cause the aircraft to depressurize?

Uncontained failure.


User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8988 posts, RR: 75
Reply 6, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 4412 times:

Quoting AirWillie6475 (Thread starter):
Actually my question is what do airlines do or what are their procedures when a plane has a depressurization as a result of the loss of an engine while they are in ETOPS area, especially if they are at later stages when they might not have a lot of fuel left to burn at lower levels.

ETOPS are really planning guidelines, the three major scenarios we look at our equi-time points (ETP)s are :

Engine failure with drift down to single engine drift down height (say cruise FL200-250)
Engine failure with depressurisation (cruise FL100 on one engine)
Depressurisation with no engine failure (cruise FL100 on two engines)

Generally if required at the planning stage fuel will be "built up" at ETPs to take into account these scenarios. This is the critical fuel requirement for the flight, so effectively if required to "build up" fuel at a ETP, fuel in excess of what is required for the flight is carried.

On a non-ETOPS flight, the critical amount of fuel is what is normally required to say get to your destination, do an approach, divert to your alternate, and land with the required reserves.

1: ___XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX_--_ETOPS_DATA_--_XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX_PN_0000
2:
3: ETOPS_ENTRY_N0000.3E00000.7________ETOPS_EXIT__N0000.2E00000.5
4:
5: ENRT_ALTN
6: AAAA_SUITABLE__1806/2215
7: BBBB_SUITABLE__1937/2202
8:
9: ETP_AAAA/BBBB_01/48_1849NM__P003/P007__BURN_0054_N00000E000000
10:
11: ______________AAAA/BBBB_-_EQUAL_TIME_POINT_DATA_-_ETP1
12:
13: DIVERSION_SUMMARY_..._______________AAAA________________BBBB
14: TIME_________02.04__@_AVG_0432KTAS
15: F.L._________0100
16: FOB__________007225
17: CRUISE_DIST_________________________0899________________0907
18: AVG_W/C_____________________________P003________________P007
19: ENROUTE_TEMP________________________P009________________P011
20: ETP_TEMP_/_FL100_______P012_________P010________________P010
21: AVG_GWT_______________________223251____223424____223248____223432
22:
23: BURN_SUMMARY_FL100_...________2_ENG.____1_ENG.____2_ENG.____1_ENG.
24: _______________________________LRC_______1LE_______LRC_______1LE
25: DIVERSION____111111__02.10____111111____111111____111111____111111
26: HOLD_________111111__00.15____111111____111111____111111____111111
27: MAP__________111111___________111111____111111____111111____111111
28: CONTINGENCY__111111___________111111____111111____111111____111111
29: ANTI_ICE_____111111___________111111____111111____111111____111111
30: ICE_DRAG_____111111___________111111____111111____111111____111111
31: APU__________111111___________111111____111111____111111____111111
32: TOTAL________022500__02.15____020000____018000____022500____019000
33: FOB__________019500
34: QTY_DIFF.___-003000

Sorry about the formatting above, the best I could do to get it formatted correctly.

This is a snippet from a fake plan showing the ETOPS data between two Airports AAAA and BBBB.

It is saying that the single engine flight time at the ETP will be 2:04 min at 432 kts.

As you can see the two engine long range cruise (2 ENG LRC), which is the two engine depressurised cruise I mentioned before to either AAAA or BBBB are the more critical fuel scenarios, as going to AAAA from the ETP we would need 20t of fuel, to BBBB 22.5t.

At this ETP however we only have 19.5t of fuel (line 34) so we would need to add 3t of fuel as an ETOPS build up to have enough fuel at the ETP to meet the critical fuel requirements.

1: ___XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX_--_FUEL_ANALYSIS_--_XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX_PN_0000
2:
3: TAXI_______________1.000
4: FLIGHT___________105.000__00.00__PERF_FACTOR_P00.0%
5: APPROACH__________01.500
6: ARR_ALLOWANCE_____01.500
7: CONTINGENCY_(_5%)_04.000__00.00
8: HOLDING_BBBB______00.000__00.00
9: DIVRSN_TO_CCCC____02.000__00.00
10: S/HOLD_AT_CCCC____00.000__00.00__AV_CRZ_F/F_-_00000_KGS
11: F.F.R.____(HOLD)___2.000__00.00
12: ETOPS_B/UP________03.000__00.00__INC._BURN_PER_0000KGS_00000
13: MIN_REQUIRED_____120.000__00.00
14:
15: PLANNED_ADDIT_____00.000__00.00
16:
17: PLANNED_FUEL______00.000__00.00
18:
19: ADJUSTMENT_______.......__.....
20:
21: TOTAL_FUEL_______.......__.....

The required ETOPS build up would then find its way onto the fuel analysis (line 12) where the extra 3t is added.

Hope this answers your question.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineFr8Mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5383 posts, RR: 14
Reply 7, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 4392 times:

Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 5):
Uncontained failure.

And an uncontained failure, that punctures the fuselage in a sufficient manner to depressurize the aircraft, without destroying the wing, is an even more remote possibility than the triple failure I cited.

And yes, I know about the uncontained failures on the early CF6 engines. Still giving the overall usage, very remote.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 8, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 4386 times:

ETOPS certification really runs along the lines of single item failures like engine failure OR loss of cabin pressure, but not both.

ETOPS has a more restrictive MEL than for around-town flying. If you have a deferred maintenance item that could adversely affect your ability to make an alternate in the event of ___ the plane is probably going to be routed the long way around or even parked until it is fixed.



Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3495 posts, RR: 66
Reply 9, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 4317 times:

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 8):
ETOPS certification really runs along the lines of single item failures like engine failure OR loss of cabin pressure, but not both

No, the ETOPS regulations specifically require that Twins cover an engine failure and depressurization when doing mission fuel planning.

This is done per regulation, independent of the probability of the two failure conditions.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 6):
Engine failure with drift down to single engine drift down height (say cruise FL200-250)
Engine failure with depressurisation (cruise FL100 on one engine)
Depressurisation with no engine failure (cruise FL100 on two engines)

Zeke is correct as this is the second of the three failure cases he lists.

This is an area where ETOPS Twins have a safety margin that may not be present for Quads. Quads are not required by regulation to plan for this type of scenario. It's up to the individual airline Ops Department, with nudges from their POI (Principal Operations Inspector) perhaps, to consider it.

The proposed LROPS rules would make all Twins, Tris and Quads do mission fuel planning considering an engine failure with a depressurization and level the playing field in this area.



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8988 posts, RR: 75
Reply 10, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 4287 times:

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 9):

This is an area where ETOPS Twins have a safety margin that may not be present for Quads. Quads are not required by regulation to plan for this type of scenario. It's up to the individual airline Ops Department, with nudges from their POI (Principal Operations Inspector) perhaps, to consider it.

The proposed LROPS rules would make all Twins, Tris and Quads do mission fuel planning considering an engine failure with a depressurization and level the playing field in this area.

OAG,

The bit you have not painted is that with the 330/340 share the same fire detection and suppression systems they both have the ETOPS equipment on them. The systems on the 340 have a greater level of redundancy than the 330, with the same ETOPS safety requirements as the 330, including the ability to use the APU up to 41000'.

The only Quads that I know of that do not have ETOPS levels of fire detection and supression systems fitted standard come from the USA. I cannot recall being able to use the APU on the 744 in flight.

I think you comments are relevent to the 744/777 comparison, but not to the the 330/340/380.

I am not aware of any operator that does not allow for a depressurization with all engines on a Quad, which is more critical than the case of a three engine depressurization.

Which operators do you know of not plan for depressurization with a Quad ?



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineMrocktor From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1668 posts, RR: 50
Reply 11, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 4253 times:

Quoting Fr8Mech (Reply 7):
And an uncontained failure, that punctures the fuselage in a sufficient manner to depressurize the aircraft, without destroying the wing, is an even more remote possibility than the triple failure I cited.

Not necessarily true. Statistically uncontained failures occur once every million to ten million engine hours, the "vulnerable area" is about 1/10th of the engine circumference. The triple failure is probably a couple orders of magnitude less likely - from a purely mathematical point of view.

More importantly, uncontained failures are not treated statistically in aircraft certification. It is required that the aircraft survive the uncontained failure except in cases where the aircraft configuration makes that impossible (such as damage to the opposite engine).


User currently offlineBAe146QT From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2006, 996 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 4241 times:

Quoting Airfoilsguy:

Engines
Turn
Or
People
Swim

777 Captain on PA: "Sorry folks, we've had an engine failure so we're going to be about two and a half hours late to our destination"

Passenger: "Man I hope we don't lose the other one. We'll be up here all day."



Todos mis dominós son totalmente pegajosos
User currently offlineFr8Mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5383 posts, RR: 14
Reply 13, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 4241 times:

Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 11):
Statistically uncontained failures occur once every million to ten million engine hours

That's a pretty big range.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineMrocktor From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1668 posts, RR: 50
Reply 14, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 4227 times:

Quoting Fr8Mech (Reply 13):
That's a pretty big range.

One order of magnitude is a pretty tight range for things that happen that infrequently  Wink . When the AC that deals with uncontained failures was first published (1989) the statistical data indicated 1 in a million, current technology engines are in the 1 in ten million range. Since we have airplanes of all ages flying, I gave the range of possibilities.


User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3495 posts, RR: 66
Reply 15, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 4185 times:

Quoting Zeke (Reply 10):
The bit you have not painted is that with the 330/340 share the same fire detection and suppression systems they both have the ETOPS equipment on them. The systems on the 340 have a greater level of redundancy than the 330, with the same ETOPS safety requirements as the 330, including the ability to use the APU up to 41000'.

I thought we were talking about mission fuel planning under various scenarios. Where did I say anything about fire detection/suppression?

But while we're on the subject, the amount of fire suppressant is important for the route flown. Using your comparison of the A330 to the A340, no A330 is required to carry more than 222 minutes of fire suppressant (207 min ETOPS + 15 min Hold contingency). The current regulations do not require the A340 to be carrying 255 min of fire suppressant (240 min diversion + 15 min Hold) even though it could be flying in an area that would require a 240 min diversion or longer.

This is another operational discrepancy that will be addressed by the proposed LROPS rules. Airplane capability and fitted equipment will be matched to the missions being flown, not the number of engines carried.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 10):
I am not aware of any operator that does not allow for a depressurization with all engines on a Quad, which is more critical than the case of a three engine depressurization.

How do you know that depressurization only is more critical than an engine failure plus depressurization for a Quad? Both are going to be flying at 10,000 ft unless there is an inordinate amount of pax O2 onboard. How are you sure that the fuel flow at 10,000 ft with four engines operating is worse than with three engines operating? You're assuming that the TSFC for the all engine power setting is so much worse than that for the three engine power setting that windmilling drag and control drag for the engine inoperative case can be ignored. At least Twins are required to check this condition. Have you ever checked it for a Quad? If a check and fuel planning is a requirement for a Twin, why shouldn't it also be a requirement for a Quad? After all, the probability of an engine failure combined with a depressurization is higher for a Quad than a Twin simply because there are more engines to fail. The ability to use the APU at FL410 won't help keep the airplane pressurized if an outflow valve is stuck in the open position.

By the way, if you're right about the TSFC relationship for four engine vs three engine operation at low altitudes for a Quad, I'm surprised that Quads don't shut down an engine during low altitude holds (said with tongue firmly in cheek)



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8988 posts, RR: 75
Reply 16, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 4168 times:

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 15):
But while we're on the subject, the amount of fire suppressant is important for the route flown. Using your comparison of the A330 to the A340, no A330 is required to carry more than 222 minutes of fire suppressant (207 min ETOPS + 15 min Hold contingency). The current regulations do not require the A340 to be carrying 255 min of fire suppressant (240 min diversion + 15 min Hold) even though it could be flying in an area that would require a 240 min diversion or longer.

All of our 330/340 aircraft carry 240-280 minutes. The 340 has the same system as the 330. Two bottles, one with an immediate discharge, the other with a 240+ minute slow release.

That is not standard feature on quad aircraft coming form the USA.

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 15):
How do you know that depressurization only is more critical than an engine failure plus depressurization for a Quad?

Because that is what our plans say. Depressurization with 4 engines burns more fuel than the 3 engine case, the LRC remains basically the same, fuel flows are reduced on 3 engines.

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 15):
At least Twins are required to check this condition. Have you ever checked it for a Quad?

Yes we do check this (the flight planning system) every flight.

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 15):
If a check and fuel planning is a requirement for a Twin, why shouldn't it also be a requirement for a Quad?

We do, our 330 guys fly 340s and vise versa, the plans between types are almost identical.

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 15):
By the way, if you're right about the TSFC relationship for four engine vs three engine operation at low altitudes for a Quad, I'm surprised that Quads don't shut down an engine during low altitude holds (said with tongue firmly in cheek)

Nimrod shuts down the two outboard engines at low altitude to extend endurance.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently onlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17014 posts, RR: 67
Reply 17, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 4156 times:

Quoting Zeke (Reply 16):
Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 15):
By the way, if you're right about the TSFC relationship for four engine vs three engine operation at low altitudes for a Quad, I'm surprised that Quads don't shut down an engine during low altitude holds (said with tongue firmly in cheek)

Nimrod shuts down the two outboard engines at low altitude to extend endurance.

Indeed. But there are AFAIK lubrication issues unless the design specifically allows it.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3495 posts, RR: 66
Reply 18, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 4123 times:

Quoting Zeke (Reply 16):
All of our 330/340 aircraft carry 240-280 minutes.

Then your A330's are carrying additional weight that isn't required.

Tell CX Ops that you've got an idea to improve fuel burn by reducing fire suppressant on the A330. There is no operational issue since the A330 can never need more than 222 min. to be legal.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 16):
We do, our 330 guys fly 340s and vise versa, the plans between types are almost identical.

Does every airline with Quads check three engine vs four engine depressurization? Is the answer always that the four engine pressurization is worse?

Quoting Zeke (Reply 16):
Nimrod shuts down the two outboard engines at low altitude to extend endurance.



Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 17):
Indeed. But there are AFAIK lubrication issues unless the design specifically allows it.

So does the P3, but they have a feather button. In addition, two engines shutdown is symmetric with no control drag and now you really can be in the sweet spot for TSFC.



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlinePygmalion From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 966 posts, RR: 38
Reply 19, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 4116 times:

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 18):
Quoting Zeke (Reply 16):
Nimrod shuts down the two outboard engines at low altitude to extend endurance.



Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 17):
Indeed. But there are AFAIK lubrication issues unless the design specifically allows it.

So does the P3, but they have a feather button. In addition, two engines shutdown is symmetric with no control drag and now you really can be in the sweet spot for TSFC.

The shut down of the outboard engines for sub hunters is based on "loiter time" or hold on station time to maximize finding a slow moving sub or ship (relatively slow that is) not a "best range" fuel burn scenario. Completely different mission. When I was a P3 flight engineer ( long long ago) , we kept very close track of fuel remaining vs fuel needed at best 3 engine cruise to ensure if poo hit the fan we could make it home. You could not assume you could make it back on 2 engines even if you climbed like a pig to some better cruise altitude. It would climb on two but it was slow. Loiter time was better with 2 shut down and feathered but it was NOT best range


User currently onlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17014 posts, RR: 67
Reply 20, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 4106 times:

Quoting Pygmalion (Reply 19):
Loiter time was better with 2 shut down and feathered but it was NOT best range

Very good point. So this kind of strategy is not applicable for planes that are actually going somewhere. But for the P-3 loitering that is not the primary mission driver.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlinePygmalion From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 966 posts, RR: 38
Reply 21, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 4096 times:

It was great to spend 14 hours in the plane but not really go anywhere.  sarcastic 

User currently offlineAirfoilsguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 4027 times:

Do etops rules apply to biss/Private jets?

User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8988 posts, RR: 75
Reply 23, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3969 times:

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 15):

By the way, if you're right about the TSFC relationship for four engine vs three engine operation at low altitudes for a Quad, I'm surprised that Quads don't shut down an engine during low altitude holds (said with tongue firmly in cheek)

Had a look at a few failures on the 346 with a 1000 nm diversion at 260t. I did it for one engine inoperative, 4 engines depressurised, 3 engine depressurised, and 2 engine depressurised.

Data below







EnginesAltitudeTimeFuel
4FL370ReferanceReferance
3FL370+3%+5%
4FL100+27%+71%
3FL100+24%+51%
2FL100+19%+58%




We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3495 posts, RR: 66
Reply 24, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 3927 times:

Quoting Zeke (Reply 23):
Had a look at a few failures on the 346 with a 1000 nm diversion at 260t. I did it for one engine inoperative, 4 engines depressurised, 3 engine depressurised, and 2 engine depressurised.

Data below

Interesting. Do you have these data as a function of weight?



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
25 Post contains links Zeke : Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 24): Interesting. Do you have these data as a function of weight? Yes in the QRH and FCOM 2, takes a bit to do all the calcu
26 BuckFifty : The cargo hold has two bottles, one which will release it's contents in 60 seconds for fire retardation. The second one is for the afformentioned slo
27 Post contains images Zeke : The system in the 330 & 340 are the same, the first bottle is larger, it is the one on the left in the photo below, the second one is a "top up" as t
28 OldAeroGuy : Fire suppression depends on holding a given percentage concentration. Metering the second bottle is what holds the concentration. If the flight time
29 BuckFifty : Thanks for the info eh. I was told this during a line check, but with pictorial evidence, I suppose I can refute this the next time out. From what I
30 Post contains images HiFi : Correct. Furthermore, ETOPS regulation demands that all failure conditions not shown to be extremely improbable will not cause fuel exhaustion. In ot
31 HiFi : Update: that just happened this week...
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Etops Question
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Specific JP8 Fuel Info Question posted Wed Dec 20 2006 18:20:55 by RIHNOSAUR
Boeing 777-200F Side Cargo Door Question posted Tue Dec 19 2006 08:29:07 by LTU932
Overwing Exit Question posted Mon Dec 18 2006 17:10:47 by Blackbird
A Weighty Question. . . posted Sat Dec 16 2006 14:49:42 by AS384
L-1011-500 Question posted Sat Dec 16 2006 00:55:10 by Blackbird
Question For Continental Mechanics posted Thu Dec 14 2006 23:32:37 by Charlienorth
Weather's Affect On Etops posted Sun Dec 10 2006 10:43:02 by Artsyman
Airborne Express 767-200: Loading Question posted Wed Dec 6 2006 16:09:58 by Jonathan-l
An XB-70 AV-2 Question. posted Tue Dec 5 2006 23:59:56 by Starglider
Bombardier Q400 Field Performance: Question posted Sun Dec 3 2006 17:40:48 by A342

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format