Guest

Etops Extention

Sat Aug 28, 1999 2:48 am

What do you think about the FAA's idea to extend ETOPS range to 240 minutes? I think it sounds slightly risky, but I also realize that ETOPS has a great safety record.
 
mirage
Posts: 3612
Joined: Mon May 31, 1999 4:44 am

RE: Etops Extention

Sat Aug 28, 1999 3:19 am

I think that´s to protect the 777 against the A340 on the routes over the Pacific. That will permit the 777 users to reroute these crossings saving money.

Luis, Faro, Portugal
 
CX747
Posts: 5566
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

RE: Etops Extention

Sat Aug 28, 1999 3:29 am

Then maybe the Airbus should have never made a twin and started ETOPS.
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
Guest

RE: Etops Extention

Sat Aug 28, 1999 3:35 am

I think they only want to extend it to 207 minutes. That will be enough for 777 operators using the pacific routes...It is a drawback for the A340 but again the decision to go for the 777 or the 340 is not only based on two or four engines. After all the rules are going to apply to the A330 as well, and it is up to airbus to extend the jet's range if it wants to compete more efficiently...
 
JZ
Posts: 422
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 1:55 am

RE: Etops Extention

Sat Aug 28, 1999 4:06 am

With the track record of 180-minute ETOPS, I think 240-minute ETOPS will be fine. But I wonder what routes can this be applied. On the Atlantic, 180-minutes is more than enough. On the Pacific, I think 210-minutes ETOPS can cover the majority of the routes.
 
cedarjet
Posts: 8101
Joined: Mon May 24, 1999 1:12 am

RE: Etops Extention (& CX747)

Sat Aug 28, 1999 4:20 am

240 minutes (at least) is needed for some routes across the South Pacific, ie Argentina to Sydney, also Perth to Harare and Joburg. CX747, never missing a chance to deliberately misinterpret a remark and kick off that Airbus vs Boeing thing. Airbus may have pioneered heavy twins, but the 767 was the first ETOPS twin by a mile. A300 Classics have never been used on ETOPS routes, only the -600R. So sorry to deprive you of your moral high horse, Boeing started it. And please refrain from reading things into posts that aren't in fact meant (as is usually obvious).
fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
 
wingman
Posts: 2769
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 4:25 am

RE: Etops Extention (& CX747)

Mon Aug 30, 1999 7:49 am

A commercial jet hasn't gone down on twin engine failure EVER. So isn't it time to extend the limits for the 777? The argument is very simple. Boeing needs it, Airbus fears it.
 
BryanG
Posts: 955
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:59 am

RE: Etops Extention

Mon Aug 30, 1999 9:23 am

Last year I remember reading in AW&ST magazine that the fraction of flights that have engine trouble over an ETOPS area is absurdly low: 1 in 60,000 if I remember correctly. The technology in engines is incredible today; the engines of today are much more dependable than even the engines of a decade and a half ago, when twin ETOPS operations started.