Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
FAA Etops Rules. Can 4 Engine Aircraft Continue  
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (3 years 1 month 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 9240 times:

With FAA for the most part requiring 3 and 4 engine aircrafts follow the same ETOPS rules as twins; Are they required to divert with one engine out or may they still continue to destination? (Of course provided they have enough fuel based on the new situation)

How much of the ETOPS changes have other authorities implemented?

63 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinewilco737 From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 9118 posts, RR: 76
Reply 1, posted (3 years 1 month 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 9230 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

Quoting cmf (Thread starter):
Are they required to divert with one engine out or may they still continue to destination? (Of course provided they have enough fuel based on the new situation)

Depends on the engine failure. If it is a fire, better land soon, if it is only precautionary shutdown, you can check for the next suitable airport. That means you are allowed to continue and look for a proper airport.
To continue to destination would be possible if fuel is sufficient and it is the safer course of action.

Sometimes airlines want their airplanes at some special airport where support and mechanics are available and maybe even heading in the direction of the destination: i.e.: LAX-FRA. Engine failure shortly after take off. Enough fuel to fly to FRA? doubtful. FLying across the atlantic? maybe, maybe not. Calling the company: Where do you want us? Circling over LAX and dumping 60-80 tons of fuel? Continue to ORD or JFK? better rebooking possibility for the passengers, mechanical support etc etc.

As you have fuel for many hours you have a while to think about it and make the best decision.

If you are in rush (fire etc) land ASAP!!!

wilco737
  



It it's not Boeing, I am not going.
User currently offlineyeelep From United States of America, joined Apr 2011, 670 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (3 years 1 month 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 9200 times:

From Advisory Circular AC 120-42B.

If no more than one engine is shut down on an airplane that has three or more engines, § 121.565 permits the PIC to fly beyond the nearest suitable airport in point of time if the PIC determines that doing so is as safe as landing at the nearest suitable airport. In making decision to fly beyond the nearest suitable airport, the PIC should consider all relevant factors and, in addition, consider the possible difficulties that may occur if the flight is continued beyothe nearest suitable airport. When an airplane with more than two engines bypasses a suitable alternate, the PIC should carefully weigh the risk associated with the next possible failure, wcould complicate or compound the current engine inoperative condition. The next possible failure could be a system failure or another engine failure, which in either case, would affect crew workload and their possible success in completing the associated abnormal approach alanding procedures.


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (3 years 1 month 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 9147 times:

Thanks!

With this option still available why the big stink about the BA LAX(?) to LHR a few years ago?

Quoting wilco737 (Reply 1):
If you are in rush (fire etc) land ASAP!!!

I knew I should have been much more specific  


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 4, posted (3 years 1 month 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 9041 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 3):
With this option still available why the big stink about the BA LAX(?) to LHR a few years ago?

It's this part:

Quoting yeelep (Reply 2):
In making decision to fly beyond the nearest suitable airport, the PIC should consider all relevant factors and, in addition, consider the possible difficulties that may occur if the flight is continued beyothe nearest suitable airport.

By electing to fly ETOPS over the Atlantic with one engine already down, the consequences of the second failure become much more significant.

Tom.


User currently offlineFabo From Slovakia, joined Aug 2005, 1219 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (3 years 1 month 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 8908 times:

There is also talk about LO 767 continuing to WAW instead of returning to EWR or other suitable alternate in vicinty. I believe the argumentation is similar to this case - in-flight shutdown without any other failures is in my non-pilot opinion comparable to losing a (for flight itself) non-essential hydraulic system.


The light at the end of tunnel turn out to be a lighted sing saying NO EXIT
User currently offlineCitationJet From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 2469 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (3 years 1 month 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 8832 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 4):
Quoting cmf (Reply 3):
With this option still available why the big stink about the BA LAX(?) to LHR a few years ago?

It's this part:

Quoting yeelep (Reply 2):
In making decision to fly beyond the nearest suitable airport, the PIC should consider all relevant factors and, in addition, consider the possible difficulties that may occur if the flight is continued beyothe nearest suitable airport.

The BA flight have to divert and land in MAN because they ran low on fuel. That was part of the "big stink".

Link to AAIB report on the BA 747 diversion to MAN:
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...ng%20747-436,%20G-BNLG%2006-06.pdf

[Edited 2011-11-15 07:42:45]


Boeing Flown: 701,702,703;717;720;721,722;731,732,733,734,735,737,738,739;741,742,743,744,747SP;752,753;762,763;772,773.
User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9545 posts, RR: 42
Reply 7, posted (3 years 1 month 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 8810 times:

Quoting CitationJet (Reply 6):
The BA flight have to divert and land in MAN because they ran low on fuel.

To be more specific, the crew didn't think they had enough fuel available to land at LHR with the required reserves remaining. I believe BA's documentation has since been updated to make it clearer how to get at all the fuel after shutting down an engine. They didn't exactly head out over the Atlantic with their eyes shut and their fingers crossed.  


User currently offlineCitationJet From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 2469 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (3 years 1 month 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 8774 times:

Quoting David L (Reply 7):
Quoting CitationJet (Reply 6):
The BA flight have to divert and land in MAN because they ran low on fuel.

To be more specific, the crew didn't think they had enough fuel available to land at LHR with the required reserves remaining.

The AAIB report is interesting reading. At 100 ft AGL out of LAX there was an audible sound from the engine and a reduction in engine EPR. At 1,500 ft they declared "PAN" to LAX ATC and shut down #2 engine. After consulting fuel prediction, considering an overweight landing, company policy, and manufacturer's QRH, they decided to continue the flight. They cancelled the "PAN" with LAX. The engine out fuel prediction indicated landing in LHR with 7 tons of fuel, compared to the required minimum of 4.5 tons. Prior to the Atlantic crossing the FMC predicted 7 to 7.5 tons of fuel at landing in LHR. Over Ireland the predicted fuel was 6.5 tons at LHR. During descent into MAN the crew became concerned that the fuel was not transferring properly. They declared "PAN" with MAN ATC. Then they received a "Fuel Qty Low" message and they declared "MAYDAY" to MAN ATC. The plane left LAX with 119 tons of fuel, and arrived on the stand in MAN with 4.9 tons of fuel. The plane was later refuelled and 3 engine ferried to LHR by a crew qualified for 3 engine flghts.



Boeing Flown: 701,702,703;717;720;721,722;731,732,733,734,735,737,738,739;741,742,743,744,747SP;752,753;762,763;772,773.
User currently offlineCitationJet From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 2469 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (3 years 1 month 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 8750 times:

The Los Angeles ATC tapes from BA's LAX departure obtained by the WSJ under the FOI. LAX ATC seemed amazed that the BA flight continued after what they saw with the engine flames.

http://mfile.akamai.com/15086/wma/me...20060918/speedbird1/speedbird1.asx
http://mfile.akamai.com/15086/rm/med.../20060918/speedbird1/speedbird1.rm
http://mfile.akamai.com/15086/wma/me...20060918/speedbird2/speedbird2.asx
http://mfile.akamai.com/15086/rm/med.../20060918/speedbird2/speedbird2.rm
http://mfile.akamai.com/15086/wma/me...20060918/speedbird3/speedbird3.asx
http://mfile.akamai.com/15086/rm/med.../20060918/speedbird3/speedbird3.rm
http://mfile.akamai.com/15086/wma/me...20060918/speedbird4/speedbird4.asx
http://mfile.akamai.com/15086/rm/med.../20060918/speedbird4/speedbird4.rm



Boeing Flown: 701,702,703;717;720;721,722;731,732,733,734,735,737,738,739;741,742,743,744,747SP;752,753;762,763;772,773.
User currently offlineyeelep From United States of America, joined Apr 2011, 670 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (3 years 1 month 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 8666 times:

Quoting Fabo (Reply 5):

There is also talk about LO 767 continuing to WAW instead of returning to EWR or other suitable alternate in vicinty. I believe the argumentation is similar to this case - in-flight shutdown without any other failures is in my non-pilot opinion comparable to losing a (for flight itself) non-essential hydraulic system.

If an engine fails or is shut down in flight, FAA regulations require the pilot in command (PIC) of a twin-engine jetliner to land at the nearest suitable airport, in terms of flight time, at which a safe landing can be made. If the airport of origin is nearest, an air turnback is performed. If the destination airport is nearest, the airplane continues on to land as planned. In all other instances, a diversion must be performed to an en route alternate airport.

I'm not familiar with the incident, so I don't know at what point in the flight the IFSD occurred. I wonder which regulatory body would have jurisdiction over the flight. I imagine the pilots/Airline may have been slapped pretty hard.

Remember, when a IFSD occurs, you also lose a hydraulic, electrical and pneumatic source.


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (3 years 1 month 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 8604 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 4):
By electing to fly ETOPS over the Atlantic with one engine already down, the consequences of the second failure become much more significant.

Reading the AAIB report CitationJet provided it seems they did not have a problem with the decisions made at various points of the flight. They did include one relevant recommendation but it only addresses the guidance provided by agencies.

Safety Recommendation 2006-018 It is recommended that the Civil Aviation Authority and the Federal Aviation Administration, in conjunction with other relevant agencies, should review the policy on flight cont

Do I read it right?

[Edited 2011-11-15 14:00:28]

User currently offlineFabo From Slovakia, joined Aug 2005, 1219 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (3 years 1 month 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 8588 times:

Quoting yeelep (Reply 10):
I'm not familiar with the incident, so I don't know at what point in the flight the IFSD occurred. I wonder which regulatory body would have jurisdiction over the flight. I imagine the pilots/Airline may have been slapped pretty hard.

Actually the LO 767 I am talking about did not suffer IFSD, rather a single hydraulic failure, which I (as a layman) compare to IFSD of one engine on a four holer.



The light at the end of tunnel turn out to be a lighted sing saying NO EXIT
User currently offlinegemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5815 posts, RR: 6
Reply 13, posted (3 years 1 month 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 8525 times:

Quoting yeelep (Reply 10):
If an engine fails or is shut down in flight, FAA regulations require the pilot in command (PIC) of a twin-engine jetliner to land at the nearest suitable airport, in terms of flight time, at which a safe landing can be made.

And that affects a Polish registered and operated aircraft how?

Whatever the case the LOT pilot would follow Polish regulations and LOTs operations manual.

Gemuser



DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9545 posts, RR: 42
Reply 14, posted (3 years 1 month 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 8389 times:

Quoting CitationJet (Reply 8):

   Thanks for the summary.

Quoting cmf (Reply 11):
Do I read it right?

As I understand it, yes. From the long discussions about it here, it seems that Boeing, BA, the UK CAA and many non-US based pilots with long haul experience didn't see anything wrong with what they did while the FAA and many US-based pilots disagreed. It all seems to have hinged on an FAR that's open to interpretation - I don't know if it's been reworded since. The upshot was that BA promised not to do it again in US airspace.


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9229 posts, RR: 76
Reply 15, posted (3 years 1 month 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 8362 times:

Quoting CitationJet (Reply 6):

The BA flight have to divert and land in MAN because they ran low on fuel.

Not really, more to the point they could not get access to all the fuel they had onboard.

Quoting CitationJet (Reply 8):
The plane was later refuelled and 3 engine ferried to LHR by a crew qualified for 3 engine flghts.

And the same aircraft had another engine failure between SIN and LHR about a week later, and flew 3 engines to LHR without an issue.

Quoting yeelep (Reply 10):

If an engine fails or is shut down in flight, FAA regulations require the pilot in command (PIC) of a twin-engine jetliner to land at the nearest suitable airport, in terms of flight time, at which a safe landing can be made.

No, that is not correct, the PIC needs to divert to the nearest suitable, not the nearest. No requirement to go to the closest airport in terms of time.

Quoting yeelep (Reply 10):
If the airport of origin is nearest, an air turnback is performed. If the destination airport is nearest, the airplane continues on to land as planned. In all other instances, a diversion must be performed to an en route alternate airport.

It is always to the nearest suitable, what is defined as "suitable" depends on where you have a licence from and the airline you work for. I am legally allowed to takeoff from airports in Wx conditions that I would not be able to return to in a twin, in such cases we plan a departure alternate, that departure alternate may have nothing to do with the departure, destination, or being enroute, it maybe in the opposite direction.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineCitationJet From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 2469 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (3 years 1 month 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 8335 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 15):
Quoting CitationJet (Reply 6):

The BA flight have to divert and land in MAN because they ran low on fuel.

Not really, more to the point they could not get access to all the fuel they had onboard.

Page 20 of the report states that the crew determined a minumum landing fuel of 6.5 tons on arrival at LHR. In reality they landed in MAN with 4.9 tons of fuel. They landed short of their final destination with less than the minumum landing fuel on board. I would call that running low on fuel.



Boeing Flown: 701,702,703;717;720;721,722;731,732,733,734,735,737,738,739;741,742,743,744,747SP;752,753;762,763;772,773.
User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9545 posts, RR: 42
Reply 17, posted (3 years 1 month 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 8210 times:

Quoting CitationJet (Reply 16):
Page 20 of the report states that the crew determined a minumum landing fuel of 6.5 tons on arrival at LHR. In reality they landed in MAN with 4.9 tons of fuel. They landed short of their final destination with less than the minumum landing fuel on board. I would call that running low on fuel.

But the required minimum was 4.5 tonnes, as you noted here:

Quoting CitationJet (Reply 8):
The engine out fuel prediction indicated landing in LHR with 7 tons of fuel, compared to the required minimum of 4.5 tons.

The crew monitored the fuel all the way and when they thought they weren't going to arrive at LHR with the extra reserves they had decided to add on top of the required minimum, they diverted and landed at MAN with more than the required minimum. An inconvenience to the passengers, of course, but was it any more inconvenient than a return to LAX, especially given that, until quite late, it looked as though they'd be able to complete the entire flight?


User currently offlinebond007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 5454 posts, RR: 8
Reply 18, posted (3 years 1 month 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 8198 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 15):

Quoting yeelep (Reply 10):

If an engine fails or is shut down in flight, FAA regulations require the pilot in command (PIC) of a twin-engine jetliner to land at the nearest suitable airport, in terms of flight time, at which a safe landing can be made.

No, that is not correct, the PIC needs to divert to the nearest suitable, not the nearest. No requirement to go to the closest airport in terms of time.

Well, that's exactly what he said!


Quoting David L (Reply 17):
An inconvenience to the passengers, of course, but was it any more inconvenient than a return to LAX,

Personally, as a pilot and a passenger, I might have also included in my decision to go ahead, not only the fact that the aircraft might be technically safe to continue, but the fact that all my passengers knew we had an engine problem, heard the bangs, and many saw flames coming from the engine ... and then flew another 10hrs - a trip with 2 PAN calls, and one MAYDAY. I would say a large number of passengers felt more than 'inconvenienced'. But I wasn't there, of course.



Jimbo



I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
User currently offlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4672 posts, RR: 77
Reply 19, posted (3 years 1 month 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 8118 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

This is beating a dead horse and no one except in the US found anything to say about that crew decision.

Quoting CitationJet (Reply 9):
The Los Angeles ATC tapes from BA's LAX departure obtained by the WSJ under the FOI. LAX ATC seemed amazed that the BA flight continued after what they saw with the engine flames.

Irrelevant : Surges could be quite spectacular in terms of "pyrotechnics" but in no way are consistent with fire. The crew, having correctly diagnosed the phenomenon - and with the eye-witness report of another passengering pilot - made the decision to fly on to LHR in agreement with 1/- approved procedures, 2/ safety concerns regarding fuel, terrain and alternates, 3/- airline OCC, 4/- weather forecast.
The only problem they encountered was the stronger than expected headwinds and the estimated fuel at destination ; once again, that crew made a conservative decision to divert to MAN while in fact they should have had enough to fly on to LHR. And then,a deliberate MAYDAY declaration which they really didn't need ( a low qty message is definitely NOT a low fuel situation which would have warranted the MAYDAY sit).There hasn't been a single momùent when those passengers were put into a dangerous situation by the crew actions, even when they didn't understand the reason they couldn't balance the tanks, they followed the low qty situation and opened all pumps and xfeeds, making certain that the engines would be fed till the tanks were ran dry.
As for flights with multiple failures... I'd rather have a crew that plans for the worst at all times instead of the flippant ones.
I did once cross Northern America between the Bay of Hudson and Los Angeles with an engine shut down : had to descend some 4000 ft and increaser our flight time by some 25 minutes. ATC, both Canadian and US, was of course advised and saw nothing wrong with what we were doing (as a matter of fact, I've never seen so many direct routings than on that day !) and the purser, who could read the ETA on the MCDU was incensed that we did not tell him they could have had that extra sack time ! Never understood why we flew so slow...

As for the suitable airport definition, it is never in terms of flight time.



Contrail designer
User currently offlineyeelep From United States of America, joined Apr 2011, 670 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (3 years 1 month 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 8098 times:

Quoting Pihero (Reply 19):
As for the suitable airport definition, it is never in terms of flight time.

From reading this thread. Nowhere has the definition of suitable airport been made. Just that the closest in terms of flight time "suitable" airport must be used in the case of a diversion. Is this incorrect?


User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9545 posts, RR: 42
Reply 21, posted (3 years 1 month 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 8097 times:

Quoting bond007 (Reply 18):
I would say a large number of passengers felt more than 'inconvenienced'. But I wasn't there, of course.

But that's not a safety issue, it's a customer service issue between BA and its passengers. I'm pretty sure the crew would have advised the passengers of the situation.


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (3 years 1 month 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 8098 times:

Quoting Pihero (Reply 19):
I did once cross Northern America between the Bay of Hudson and Los Angeles with an engine shut down

How long ago? Before or after 777?


User currently offlinelowrider From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 3220 posts, RR: 10
Reply 23, posted (3 years 1 month 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 8075 times:

Quoting David L (Reply 14):
It all seems to have hinged on an FAR that's open to interpretation - I don't know if it's been reworded since.

The FAA's policy since is that a 3 or 4 engine aircraft, following the failure of 1 engine, need not land at the nearest suitable airport if in the opinion of the PIC (and dispatcher if applicable) continuing is not more dangerous than returning to land. I believe that, in the case of BA, the forecast at the destination and alternates was good, there was no significant enroute weather, and terrain/drift down requirements were not restrictive. When I first heard about it, I was not sure the crew made the best decision, but with the benefit of more experience, I now don't see a significant problem with it.



Proud OOTSK member
User currently offlinebond007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 5454 posts, RR: 8
Reply 24, posted (3 years 1 month 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 8054 times:

Quoting David L (Reply 21):
But that's not a safety issue, it's a customer service issue between BA and its passengers. I'm pretty sure the crew would have advised the passengers of the situation.

No, I didn't mean to suggest it was a safety issue, but the average passenger, even after being told 'everything is OK', would IMO still feel very uncomfortabe after hearing bangs, seeing flames, and knowing an engine is shutdown ... having to fly another 10hrs across the Atlantic. In fact I'm sure some of them were terrified.

Jimbo

[Edited 2011-11-16 15:59:56]


I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
25 Pihero : March 1995 on a 744. From the horse's mouth in Toulouse : ETOPS operations ETOPS operations apply to all flights conducted in a twin-engined aircraft
26 Jetlagged : The imposition of EROPS rules on existing 3 and 4 engined aircraft seems ill thought out to me, as well as unfair. Such aircraft were certified to fly
27 zeke : Actually 5.8 t. Incorrect, they touched down with 5.8t, the minimum required is 4.5t which is the 30 minutes reserve. You are only required to land w
28 Post contains images cmf : So before this country became hostile to passenger operations with more than two engines From what I can see there are minimal changes as it relates
29 bond007 : I think you are just misunderstanding what was said ... "nearest suitable airport, in terms of flight time" You should land at the nearest suitable a
30 Starlionblue : Current twins were designed with one engine operation in mind. The systems redundancy you speak of is there. A 777, designed in the 90s, on one engin
31 yeelep : Right, and I believe Iv'e been using the term suitable airport as defined in your post. So what's your point.
32 yeelep : So, as PIC you are diverting to the closest airport you deemed suitable, its still the closest one. What if you did the same, but the only difference
33 zeke : Extending the flight time for better maintenance on one engine, yep, lots of hot water in a twin. On a quad, not an issue. A feature of the new ETOPS
34 tdscanuck : It's basically a recognition of two things: -An ISFD is a bad thing on any aircraft, regardless of number of engines, and the ETOPS regulations have
35 Jetlagged : Yes I know modern EROPS twins have that redundancy, though non-EROPS twins don't. All 744s, DC10s and MD11s have the required redundancy. My point wa
36 tdscanuck : No, they don't. Those aircraft are missing some capabilities of ETOPS twins. One trivial example is redundant crossfeed. They weren't certified to th
37 yeelep : As the FAA explains in the preamble to ETOPS 2007 rulemaking: The FAA strongly believes that all operators would benefit from an ETOPS maintenance pr
38 Post contains images David L : Your views agree with what I've deduced, on balance, from listening to the pros on that incident (outside the USA, anyway ). Nevertheless, the FAA to
39 lowrider : They usually do, if it suits their purpose. I think this was a case of "Ready, Fire, Aim". They reacted poorly to a situation without fully consideri
40 Pihero : You have too restrictive a definition of ETOPS diversion, Tom. There are times when you'd be too far from an LRC circle and you'd need a faster diver
41 Jetlagged : Pardon me for offering an opinion. BTW, they aren't my "beloved" tri/quad aircraft and I don't hate twins. Why be so agressive? I'd be interested in
42 Jetlagged : The 744 was certified to fly the ranges it does allowing for the possibility of an engine shutdown. Why should such ranges retrospectively be regarde
43 SunriseValley : Pinhero... could you elaborate on what you are saying here. I believe the one-engine out cruise speed of a 777 is about 412k. Is there a flexibility
44 Fabo : Well, does it have to be engine out speed? ETOPS go way beyond that, and I dont even have to think hard to imagine a situation when single engine end
45 yeelep : What's the fixation with redundancies and IFSD's in regards to the quads and ETOPS. From everything Iv'e read, little or no changes are been required
46 zeke : We plan the 777-200/300 and A330 at Vmo/Mmo, and the 77W at Mmo/Vmo-10. This gives us the maximum diversion distance and highest fuel requirement. Ha
47 Jetlagged : Can ETOPS fire suppression systems really keep fires safely under control for up to 180 minutes? As I said in an earlier post I wouldn't argue over w
48 SunriseValley : The one engine out cruise speed sets the distance allowed at 180-min. from the alternate aerodrome.
49 yeelep : More than 180 minutes, at least during the certification tests. Extended Operations (ETOPS) of Multi-Engine Airplanes; Final Rule D. Cargo or Baggage
50 Pihero : I never thought of looking at it this way ! Good one ! That figure has basically no value apart from a "ball park" point of view. In my airline, ETOP
51 tdscanuck : I don't think anyone made that claim...the claim was that an ETOPS twin with one engine out may be safer than a quad with *two* engines out. Because
52 cmf : Are there any cases of more than one engine shutdowns from independent events?
53 Starlionblue : I don't believe there are any on commercial jets or turboprops.
54 Post contains images wilco737 : Only thing I know of is several (or better all) engine flameout on a B747-200 of BA near CGK due to vulcanic ash... wilco737
55 yeelep : That would be a multiple shutdown from the same event.
56 Post contains images wilco737 : I should read more carefully... Thanks. Sorry 'bout that. wilco737
57 Jetlagged : I had said I'd feel happier on a 747 with one engine out than a twin with both engines running. yeelep had disagreed and I was asking him specificall
58 Post contains links zanl188 : Only thing I can think of off the top of my head is the El Al 747 at Amsterdam. Fuse pin would be the single initiating event, though a person could
59 Jetlagged : I think that must be regarded as a single cause. The outboard engine was damaged by debris from the inboard. I don't think any aircraft (2,3 or 4 eng
60 zanl188 : True, however IMO all else being equal, an ETOPS twin would have had the advantage of increased thrust to weight ratio from the remaining propulsion
61 Jetlagged : No, but they should do better than twins. It's not clear the air would move in the wrong direction at a high forward speed (as with the Lauda 767) bu
62 zanl188 : I'm only aware of two occasions were it's occurred, Lauda 767 & a C-5. Extremely poor outcome in both cases. C-5 nearly rolled over due to loss o
63 Jetlagged : I've read that is has happened on 747 classics, but I'm not aware of the circumstances. It has also happened to a PWA 737-200 with fatal consequences
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic FAA Etops Rules. Can 4 Engine Aircraft Continue
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...
Single Engine Aircraft Pax Rule posted Wed May 14 2008 13:23:07 by AlexEU
Heavy Twin Engine Aircraft posted Sun Apr 20 2008 18:08:20 by KC135TopBoom
How Fast Can An Aircraft Go With Reverse Thrust? posted Tue Jul 11 2006 20:30:34 by Legoguy
Can An Aircraft Use 2 Different Types Of Engines? posted Sun Apr 17 2005 09:57:47 by 9V-SVC
Can A 3 Engine Freight A/C Cruise Using 2? posted Sat Sep 25 2004 06:17:32 by Ltbewr
Three Engine Aircraft Popular Cargo Airplanes posted Fri Apr 9 2004 15:02:16 by Beowulf
Rear Engine Aircraft: Slow Climb? posted Sat Sep 21 2002 23:20:47 by BigPhilNYC
Can Any Aircraft Catch Concorde? posted Sat Sep 14 2002 01:02:29 by Rickb
Can An Aircraft Take Off Before V1 Or Vr? posted Sat Jun 15 2002 06:22:15 by Airbus Lover
Best Single Engine Aircraft To Train On? posted Tue Jun 11 2002 16:41:24 by Fly_yhm

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format