MSN007
Topic Author
Posts: 70
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 11:34 pm

ETOPS Increased To 330 Minutes For 777 Operators

Mon Dec 12, 2011 10:11 pm

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
 
ukoverlander
Posts: 355
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 10:57 pm

ETOPS Increased To 330 Minutes For 777 Operators

Mon Dec 12, 2011 10:53 pm

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]
 
kiwiandrew

ETOPS Increased To 330 Minutes For 777 Operators

Mon Dec 12, 2011 11:04 pm

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.
 
B777LRF
Posts: 1447
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 4:23 am

ETOPS Increased To 330 Minutes For 777 Operators

Mon Dec 12, 2011 11:05 pm

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 avatar
notaxonrotax
Posts: 965
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 2:29 pm

ETOPS Increased To 330 Minutes For 777 Operators

Mon Dec 12, 2011 11:12 pm

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 anybody that happens to be wondering:"yes, owning your own aircraft is a 100% worth it!"
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 7488
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

ETOPS Increased To 330 Minutes For 777 Operators

Mon Dec 12, 2011 11:28 pm

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.
Flown to 120 Airports in 44 Countries on 73 Operators. Visited 55 Countries and counting. Wanderlust is like Syphilis, once you have the itch it's too late for treatment.
 
spacecadet
Posts: 2807
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2001 3:36 am

ETOPS Increased To 330 Minutes For 777 Operators

Mon Dec 12, 2011 11:50 pm

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!
 
747400sp
Posts: 3855
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

ETOPS Increased To 330 Minutes For 777 Operators

Mon Dec 12, 2011 11:52 pm

Ah heck no, this could convince SQ to buy 77L, to change their A345 service from SIN to LAX to 77L.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 4957
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

ETOPS Increased To 330 Minutes For 777 Operators

Mon Dec 12, 2011 11:54 pm

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.
 
mffoda
Posts: 1017
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:09 pm

ETOPS Increased To 330 Minutes For 777 Operators

Mon Dec 12, 2011 11:56 pm

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 avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 4972
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

ETOPS Increased To 330 Minutes For 777 Operators

Tue Dec 13, 2011 12:12 am

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
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13772
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

ETOPS Increased To 330 Minutes For 777 Operators

Tue Dec 13, 2011 12:17 am

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.
 
PC12Fan
Posts: 1978
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:50 pm

ETOPS Increased To 330 Minutes For 777 Operators

Tue Dec 13, 2011 12:19 am

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'!
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9606
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

ETOPS Increased To 330 Minutes For 777 Operators

Tue Dec 13, 2011 12:21 am

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!
 
Max Q
Posts: 5645
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

ETOPS Increased To 330 Minutes For 777 Operators

Tue Dec 13, 2011 12:36 am

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 avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 7488
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

ETOPS Increased To 330 Minutes For 777 Operators

Tue Dec 13, 2011 12:45 am

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.
Flown to 120 Airports in 44 Countries on 73 Operators. Visited 55 Countries and counting. Wanderlust is like Syphilis, once you have the itch it's too late for treatment.
 
thegeek
Posts: 1330
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:20 am

ETOPS Increased To 330 Minutes For 777 Operators

Tue Dec 13, 2011 12:50 am

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 avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23213
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

ETOPS Increased To 330 Minutes For 777 Operators

Tue Dec 13, 2011 12:55 am

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.
 
kiwiandrew

ETOPS Increased To 330 Minutes For 777 Operators

Tue Dec 13, 2011 12:57 am

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.
 
MSN007
Topic Author
Posts: 70
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 11:34 pm

ETOPS Increased To 330 Minutes For 777 Operators

Tue Dec 13, 2011 1:05 am

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 avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 7488
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

ETOPS Increased To 330 Minutes For 777 Operators

Tue Dec 13, 2011 1:21 am

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.
Flown to 120 Airports in 44 Countries on 73 Operators. Visited 55 Countries and counting. Wanderlust is like Syphilis, once you have the itch it's too late for treatment.
 
thegeek
Posts: 1330
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:20 am

ETOPS Increased To 330 Minutes For 777 Operators

Tue Dec 13, 2011 1:42 am

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.
 
warden145
Posts: 539
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 8:36 am

ETOPS Increased To 330 Minutes For 777 Operators

Tue Dec 13, 2011 1:45 am

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
 
BMI727
Posts: 11123
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

ETOPS Increased To 330 Minutes For 777 Operators

Tue Dec 13, 2011 1:53 am

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?
 
Gemuser
Posts: 4348
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 12:07 pm

ETOPS Increased To 330 Minutes For 777 Operators

Tue Dec 13, 2011 1:55 am

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
 
Alnicocunife
Posts: 194
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 3:32 pm

ETOPS Increased To 330 Minutes For 777 Operators

Tue Dec 13, 2011 2:29 am

Besides what are the odd of both engines quitting? Air Transat Airbus A330. Lack of fuel? Something other than the engines

Quoting ukoverlander (Reply 1):
shifting

usually causes diversions with ETOPS aircraft. Passengers, inop lavs, hydraulic, etc...
 
kiwiandrew

ETOPS Increased To 330 Minutes For 777 Operators

Tue Dec 13, 2011 2:34 am

Quoting Alnicocunife (Reply 25):
Besides what are the odd of both engines quitting? Air Transat Airbus A330. Lack of fuel? Something other than the engines

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 engines. If it had been a B-52 and it ran out of fuel then there would have been 8 dead engines.
 
BMI727
Posts: 11123
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

ETOPS Increased To 330 Minutes For 777 Operators

Tue Dec 13, 2011 2:40 am

Quoting Alnicocunife (Reply 25):
Besides what are the odd of both engines quitting? Air Transat Airbus A330. Lack of fuel? Something other than the engines

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 into the leak. And it doesn't matter how many engines you have, if you're out of fuel, you're flying a glider, end of story.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
peanuts
Posts: 826
Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2009 1:17 am

ETOPS Increased To 330 Minutes For 777 Operators

Tue Dec 13, 2011 2:54 am



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

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 restart 4 engines midair, you now only have 2 chances of getting one to work though...

In any case, I still feel safe on 2 engines. If it's not the engines that could seal your fate in life it could certainly be an inexperienced co-pilot pulling his side-stick in the wrong direction...  .

[Edited 2011-12-12 18:55:53]
 
YULWinterSkies
Posts: 1266
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 11:42 pm

ETOPS Increased To 330 Minutes For 777 Operators

Tue Dec 13, 2011 4:54 am

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

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 extent that the 777 is and I'm wondering if it needs ETOPS 300 or 330 at all. In short, are there any ETOPS 300 and 330 routes that the A330 has enough range for?
When I doubt... go running!
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13772
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

ETOPS Increased To 330 Minutes For 777 Operators

Tue Dec 13, 2011 5:29 am

Quoting warden145 (Reply 22):
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?

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 and quads) so the fact that two unrelated haven't happened doesn't prove much.

And ETOPS testing is done with simulated failures, not actual failures.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

ETOPS Increased To 330 Minutes For 777 Operators

Tue Dec 13, 2011 5:31 am

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 6):

180, 240, 330... these all seem like totally arbitrary numbers.

They're not...as nicely described by RoseFlyer, they fall out of the fault tree analysis for the probability of a catastrophic event.

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 6):
If engine reliability really is as good as everyone says, what possible difference would it make if you fly 330 minutes or 180 minutes?

If you fly twice as far on one engine, your probability of the remaining engine dying during the diversion is twice as high. To keep the overall risk equal, you need to double the engine reliability.

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 6):
Why wouldn't every 777 that's ETOPs rated be rated to 330 minutes? Or 400 minutes? Or 10,000 minutes?

There are several potential problems:
-To hold the same probability of a catastrophic even at 10,000 minutes, your reliability needs to 30 times better than for ETOPS330. That's not easy to do.
-The airplane may not be physically capable of holding enough fuel to do a 10,000 minute diversion
-Other airplane systems (notably oil, lavs, potable water, and fuel transfer) may not be capable of sustaining the aircraft for as long as the engines are capable of holding out.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 11):
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.

Which is exactly why you have to nearly double the reliability before they'll give you 330 over 180.

Quoting warden145 (Reply 22):
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?

The probability of either is functionally nil...it's like asking would you rather have a 1 in a million chance of winning a billion dollars or a 1 in a billion chance of winning a trillion dollars.

Quoting YULWinterSkies (Reply 29):
B787 is probably still too new for this certification.

787 had ETOPS type certification at delivery. The Japanese regulator said they wouldn't give the operational certification until a year in service.

Quoting YULWinterSkies (Reply 29):
Keep in mind ETOPS is a lot based on previous performance.

That used to be the case but is no longer. The 777 and 787 were both ETOPS certified at delivery and the A350 almost certainly will be as well.

Tom.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11866
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

ETOPS Increased To 330 Minutes For 777 Operators

Tue Dec 13, 2011 5:49 am

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 13):
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

   However, for resale value, 777s are maintained to ETOPS standards as a rule.

Quoting warden145 (Reply 22):
just because two unrelated engine failures hasn't happened yet doesn't mean that it never will.

The big risks for long haul, in my opinion are now:
1. Need for a 'time sensitive' medical diversion
2. Cargo hold fire
3. Bad fuel (e.g., not enough anti-freeze or too much water so it freezes)

I put an engine shutdown so far down it isn't even worth debating. At some point it is like worrying about a meteor strike: While the outcome would be bad, it isn't worth considering or one wouldn't be able to ever travel if one worries about everything.


But unrelated is one thing... There has been two twin failures that I'm aware of. But in those cases, I think a similarly designed quad would have lost all power too.

1. Egypt air A332. Only one oil filter was supposed to be disturbed. An industrious mechanic changed both and IIRC 'carbon blockage' stopped both Pratts.   Thankfully the plane *just* made it to the Canary Islands.
2. BA 772 at LHR. Icing on decent stopped fuel to both engines.

There have been quads that have lost all engine power (IIRC, JAL 747 in a volcano cloud). Not everything will be anticipated or is preventable. The goal of ETOPS is to make dual engine failures such a low chance that a twin is no more risky than a quad.

Yes, a quad has its own risks. The only engines that I'm aware of that have failed rotors have been quads (excluding business jets... which is another topic). (I'm sure I'm about to learn of other rotor failures...)

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.

What are you saying about QF?     


Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
LimaNiner
Posts: 272
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 2:32 pm

ETOPS Increased To 330 Minutes For 777 Operators

Tue Dec 13, 2011 6:08 am

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

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 how efficiently will your 2-holer use that gas?

Asked another way, is the "330 minutes" range computed based on normal efficiency, or is it based on worst-case efficiency when one engine has crapped out, and you're flying a severely unbalanced (and, therefore, much less efficient) plane?
 
thegeek
Posts: 1330
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:20 am

ETOPS Increased To 330 Minutes For 777 Operators

Tue Dec 13, 2011 6:29 am

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 SYD-JNB for example. Not specific to twins of course.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 32):
2. BA 772 at LHR. Icing on decent stopped fuel to both engines.

Not sure if this one counts any more than Air Transat, Gimli Glider etc.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 32):

There have been quads that have lost all engine power (IIRC, JAL 747 in a volcano cloud).

BA9, or are you thinking of a different one?
 
Tdan
Posts: 499
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 9:36 pm

ETOPS Increased To 330 Minutes For 777 Operators

Tue Dec 13, 2011 6:42 am

Green light now for NZ to start AKL-GRU with their -300ERs   
We will ride this thunderbird, silver shadows on the earth, a thousand leagues away our land of birth... -Captain Bruce
 
UM78
Posts: 43
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2011 10:56 am

ETOPS Increased To 330 Minutes For 777 Operators

Tue Dec 13, 2011 6:45 am

Quoting kiwiandrew (Reply 2):

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 flight earlier this month from Los Angeles to Auckland, N.Z.
 
tozairport
Posts: 463
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 1:01 am

ETOPS Increased To 330 Minutes For 777 Operators

Tue Dec 13, 2011 6:48 am

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

Also: Enticing Treats for our Pacific Sharks!
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
 
kiwiandrew

ETOPS Increased To 330 Minutes For 777 Operators

Tue Dec 13, 2011 6:50 am

Quoting um78 (Reply 36):
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 flight earlier this month from Los Angeles to Auckland, N.Z.

That's because we aren't ruled from Australia 
Quoting gemuser (Reply 24):
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!
 
QANTAS747-438
Posts: 1660
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2001 7:01 am

RE: Etops Increased To 330 Minutes For 777 Operators

Tue Dec 13, 2011 9:18 am

I thought the 777 was already 330min ETOPS? If not, then what was it prior to this announcement?
My posts/replies are strictly my opinion and not that of any company, organization, or Southwest Airlines.
 
alphaomega
Posts: 265
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2005 1:26 pm

RE: Etops Increased To 330 Minutes For 777 Operators

Tue Dec 13, 2011 12:17 pm

Quoting thegeek (Reply 21):
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.

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 and AA have PW or RR 777s and the rest of the 777 operators are foreign, so they aren't regulated by the FAA. Although I'm sure other regulators will follow the FAA quickly, this breakthrough currently helps 3 carriers.

Amazing that it seems only a few years ago the 767 got ETOPS and put the 3-holers out to pasture and now we have 330min ETOPS - kudos to the engine manufacturers!

Along the lines of the engines turn or people swim, I'm reminded of a joke from an AFB where the B-52 has to make an emergency landing due to an engine out....ah yes, the dreaded 7-engine approach....
 
Gemuser
Posts: 4348
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 12:07 pm

RE: Etops Increased To 330 Minutes For 777 Operators

Tue Dec 13, 2011 12:33 pm

Quoting alphaomega (Reply 40):
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 and AA have PW or RR 777s and the rest of the 777 operators are foreign, so they aren't regulated by the FAA.

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 country.

Quoting alphaomega (Reply 40):
Although I'm sure other regulators will follow the FAA quickly,

I wouldn't bet on it. NZ has introduced it with a more strigent set of requirements than the FAA. Australia is very unlikely to actually approve such operations in our airspace until our current regulators die, even then I wouldn't put money on it.

Gemuser
DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
 
nomadd22
Posts: 1566
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:42 pm

RE: Etops Increased To 330 Minutes For 777 Operators

Tue Dec 13, 2011 12:44 pm

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.

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 pressure problem. It can definitely be measured and has happened.
Granted, Coast Guard Hercs might not have met airliner standards for reliability.
The Hudson swim a certain 320 took a while back is an example of an incident that very well could take out two engines, but not four. But bird strikes are probably going to be on takeoff and landing and not ETOPS related.
Anon
 
User avatar
garpd
Posts: 2340
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 9:29 am

RE: Etops Increased To 330 Minutes For 777 Operators

Tue Dec 13, 2011 12:54 pm

Quoting nomadd22 (Reply 42):
The Hudson swim a certain 320 took a while back is an example of an incident that very well could take out two engines, but not four. But bird strikes are probably going to be on takeoff and landing and not ETOPS related.

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 easily snuff out 4 engines.
arpdesign.wordpress.com
 
Burkhard
Posts: 1916
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 9:34 pm

RE: Etops Increased To 330 Minutes For 777 Operators

Tue Dec 13, 2011 1:02 pm

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.

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 damage done in case of an uncontained failure far bigger. It would need very detailed simulation to show the average damage done by an exploded 150tons engine not to make twice the harm of a 75tons engine...
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 4991
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

RE: Etops Increased To 330 Minutes For 777 Operators

Tue Dec 13, 2011 1:13 pm

Quoting LimaNiner (Reply 33):
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 how efficiently will your 2-holer use that gas?

This has to be taken into account when planning any ETOPS flight, whether 90 or 330.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Etops Increased To 330 Minutes For 777 Operators

Tue Dec 13, 2011 2:08 pm

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 10):
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.

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 the Hudson")
HF-3378 (A-310)
BA-9 (B-747)
BA-38 (B-777)
AV-52 (B-707)

There are many, many others, on just about all airplane types.
 
mark2fly1034
Posts: 246
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 11:38 pm

RE: Etops Increased To 330 Minutes For 777 Operators

Tue Dec 13, 2011 2:18 pm

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?
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 4957
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

RE: Etops Increased To 330 Minutes For 777 Operators

Tue Dec 13, 2011 2:21 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 46):
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 the Hudson")
HF-3378 (A-310)
BA-9 (B-747)
BA-38 (B-777)
AV-52 (B-707)

There are many, many others, on just about all airplane types.

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 cause, yes, but that it not what SEPilot was talking about.
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: Etops Increased To 330 Minutes For 777 Operators

Tue Dec 13, 2011 2:22 pm

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 30):
And ETOPS testing is done with simulated failures, not actual failures.

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 emergency but it's not like you say "Let's pretend this engine is dead and fly out the rest of the flight", you really do shut down an engine (or generator or APU or packs or whatever the failure is of the day).

Quoting LimaNiner (Reply 33):
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 how efficiently will your 2-holer use that gas?

That's why dispatch has to plan your fuel assuming the worst case diversion.

Quoting LimaNiner (Reply 33):
Asked another way, is the "330 minutes" range computed based on normal efficiency, or is it based on worst-case efficiency when one engine has crapped out, and you're flying a severely unbalanced (and, therefore, much less efficient) plane?

The latter.

Quoting thegeek (Reply 34):
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 SYD-JNB for example.

That's why dispatch has to run a decompression diversion calculation. If that's the one that requires the most fuel, that's what will drive your fuel load.

Quoting nomadd22 (Reply 42):
The Hudson swim a certain 320 took a while back is an example of an incident that very well could take out two engines, but not four.

Why not four? Birds can't count at that speed.

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 44):
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 damage done in case of an uncontained failure far bigger.

A rotor burst failure has such high kinetic energy that, for analysis purposes, you assume it's infinite and the fragments are going to go in straight lines and penetrate everything in their way. The QF event showed this is a pretty reasonable model. Since engine parts are sized by stress, not load, the fact that twin engines are bigger doesn't mean they're operating under any more stress so the engine size doesn't correlate to probability of failure. *If* there's a failure the analysis case looks exactly the same. The only difference in the real world is that the fragments will be about 1.4 times larger (for a twice-as-powerful engine) but that's not going to make much difference to the damage...you're still going to have a big hole and that's why the designers locate critical components outside the burst zone to the extent possible.

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 44):
It would need very detailed simulation to show the average damage done by an exploded 150tons engine not to make twice the harm of a 75tons engine...

You don't need to do the simulation, just look at past engine failures.

Tom.