User avatar
kitplane01
Topic Author
Posts: 780
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

ETOPS and Tri-Jets

Thu Feb 22, 2018 7:17 am

Why did ETOPS rules treat two engine and three engine planes differently? Both can fly with the loss of one engine but not two. Or could a DC-10 really fly on one engine?
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 10352
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: ETOPS and Tri-Jets

Thu Feb 22, 2018 7:26 am

Yes, there's been at least one instance of a DC sustaining flight with a dual shutdown that I've heard of; couldn't maintain altitude of course, but any power's better than none.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
Antarius
Posts: 579
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2017 1:27 pm

Re: ETOPS and Tri-Jets

Thu Feb 22, 2018 7:30 am

The odds of 2 engines going out are significantly lower than 1 going out. That's primarily it. I mean barring fuel starvation, ice or bird ingestion and BA38 (also a form of fuel starvation) I can't think of an instance of dual engine failure.

Basically if 2 engines go out the third likely also would go too.

A DC10 can function on 1 engine. Not well, but likely sufficient to land somewhere safely.
2018 : AUA | CLT | IAH | HOU | DFW | COS | DEN | CLL | ORD | PVG | PEK | PHX | OAK | SFO | SJC | PHL | YYC | STL | DTW | HNL | OGG | JFK | LGA
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 12213
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: ETOPS and Tri-Jets

Thu Feb 22, 2018 9:40 am

The A340 could fly on one engine when it got light enough and low enough, I would think the same with the DC10, max thrust on the remaining engine at min drag speed I would think it would drift down slowly.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
Max Q
Posts: 6249
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

Re: ETOPS and Tri-Jets

Thu Feb 22, 2018 10:15 am

The loss of a second engine on a three
engine aircraft is unlikely however if you clean up,start dumping fuel immediately
and fly the profile with the utmost care and precision you should be able to eke a little climb out of it


At the heaviest gross weights and / or right
at rotation it may not be possible


On the 727 however we practiced this in the sim and with two common scenarios, engine failure just after V1 and another failure at around 400’


If you weren’t already dumping fuel you would start immediately ‘down to the standpipes’ which was only 3500 pounds per tank


You would then pitch over assertively (but not too much) to allow the aircraft to accelerate while retracting the flaps to zero
the target speed was around 210 knots


Once you had attained that speed you
could start a very slow climb of around
100-200 fpm and return for a single engine
landing


The other scenario was a two engine approach leading to a go around followed,
almost immediately by a second engine failure


The same drill was followed, it was challenging to do properly and not hard to
hit the ground if you miscalculated but at least you had some options


Of course at cruise altitude and airspeed
it would not have been nearly as critical



In any case your odds were a lot better than losing two engines on a twin.
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
 
BravoOne
Posts: 2669
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:27 pm

Re: ETOPS and Tri-Jets

Fri Feb 23, 2018 12:11 am

DC10 and L1011 , MD11 Equal Time Points are (were), built to support the loss of 2 engines. Back in the days of DC10/L10ll ops from the mainland to HNL the plan was a worst case scenario loss of 2 engines at the ETP, followed by a drift down and fuel dump to lessen the gross weight where level flight (4000' to 6000') on the one remaining engine and a diversion to the alternate. Not for the faint of heart. As for the A340 maintaining controlled flight on one engine I can't help but wonder if they scenario was routinely trained for? The loss of 2 engines on the 707 and 747 was a training event in Part 121 ops and imagine most other regulatory agencies.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 12213
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: ETOPS and Tri-Jets

Fri Feb 23, 2018 2:46 am

The loss of 3 engines on the A340 was not routinely trained for, however the performance data was provided in the QRH. 2 engines out on one side were normally trained for as that is what the regulators require, regulators do not require 3 engine out training as the Boeing quads as far as I am aware were not really designed for that. The A340 was designed for fly on one engine, it was called the A330. Events worse than the training did occur in service.

707 performance was ordinary with two engines out, killed a few people, the 747 could be flown on one engine, BA proved that.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
BravoOne
Posts: 2669
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:27 pm

Re: ETOPS and Tri-Jets

Fri Feb 23, 2018 1:27 pm

Yes there a more than a few killsed in the early days of pilot training in the 707, CV880 and DC8. This was significantly reduced when the newer Level C sims were introduced. Not sure what "ordinary" means in your comments?

2 enegine out ETPs were built on the loss of 1 pod engine and the center engine. FWIW. Pos engine goes first and fods the center engine..
 
greg85
Posts: 118
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 9:45 am

Re: ETOPS and Tri-Jets

Sat Feb 24, 2018 4:15 pm

Not strictly on topic. I remember an ex British airways Guy telling me that he would occasionally give crews a dual engine failure, on the same side of the 747, at max takeoff weight in Kai tak (in the simulator). He said you couldn't get above a few hundred feet! Not sure if he was talking about the -200 or -400, he'd flown both.

But as mentioned above, that's a very unlikely scenario.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Topic Author
Posts: 780
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: ETOPS and Tri-Jets

Sun Feb 25, 2018 7:48 am

Just to be clear, a DC-10 or L-1011 that's an hour or three from shore and loses two engines is going to make land? Because if you're not far from shore the ETOPS rules don't matter.

Quick note: The odds of losing two engines on a three engine plane exceed the odds of losing two engines on a two engine craft. Intuitively, there are more engines to fail on a DC-10 than on a 737. Mathematically, the odds of losing both engines on a two engine plane are p^2, and for a three engine are 3p^2(1-p)+p^3. For p<1, that's a bigger number.
 
BravoOne
Posts: 2669
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:27 pm

Re: ETOPS and Tri-Jets

Sun Feb 25, 2018 1:12 pm

kitplane01 wrote:
Just to be clear, a DC-10 or L-1011 that's an hour or three from shore and loses two engines is going to make land? Because if you're not far from shore the ETOPS rules don't matter.

Quick note: The odds of losing two engines on a three engine plane exceed the odds of losing two engines on a two engine craft. Intuitively, there are more engines to fail on a DC-10 than on a 737. Mathematically, the odds of losing both engines on a two engine plane are p^2, and for a three engine are 3p^2(1-p)+p^3. For p<1, that's a bigger number.


Not sure what you question is? the DC10, MD11, L1011 do not observe ETOPS criteria unless they are beyond 180' and are pax operations as ETOPS does not apply to cargo operators unless the operator so chooses. Having said that, as mentioned above, EO Diversions for three engine aircraft are built on the assumption that you loose two engines, drift down, and sometime have to dump enough fuel to lighten up the weight to the degree that you can stay aloft above the minimum sector altitude and divert to your alternate. Note that one of the critical fuel scenarios in a case such as this is that you have enough fuel on board when you are over the ETP that you still make it to the alternate. Both the L1011-1 and the DC10-10 could get into a fuel critical situation where the did not have the fuel onboard should all of the above happen thus requiring a turn back or new release from dispatch.

I'm not aware of this ever happening in any of the above mention aircraft, be it pax or cargo operators.
 
Apprentice
Posts: 490
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 12:51 pm

Re: ETOPS and Tri-Jets

Mon Feb 26, 2018 6:38 am

Hi: ETOPS, as I believe, it’s not only about Engine’s Out performance. There are others restrictions like Cargo Cmptmt Fire Supression.
Are planes tested and certificated by thar rules actually?

Rgds
“An AME, with just a Mechanic Role”, as per one of our pilots
"A NO" is a positive answer., "DON'T KNOW" is not. My Tutor (a wise man)
 
BravoOne
Posts: 2669
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:27 pm

Re: ETOPS and Tri-Jets

Mon Feb 26, 2018 10:52 am

Cargo fire suppression is usually the most restrictive element on ETOPS, For a 330' ETOPS qual you need the fire/smoke/fumes to be contained for 3:45. subtract 15 minutes for good measure, thus coming up with the 3:30 minute number. Boeing offer
enhanced fire suppression systems for operators desiring this extended ETOPS capability. Engine out is pretty straight forward and in real life is somewhat of a bit player in ETOPS diversions.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 18252
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: ETOPS and Tri-Jets

Mon Feb 26, 2018 11:44 am

BravoOne wrote:
Cargo fire suppression is usually the most restrictive element on ETOPS, For a 330' ETOPS qual you need the fire/smoke/fumes to be contained for 3:45. subtract 15 minutes for good measure, thus coming up with the 3:30 minute number. Boeing offer
enhanced fire suppression systems for operators desiring this extended ETOPS capability. Engine out is pretty straight forward and in real life is somewhat of a bit player in ETOPS diversions.


Indeed. Engine failure is seen as a manageable threat. Most pilots don't worry about engine failures. Obviously, it is trained for and is not trivial, but it is not the bogeyman that the general public imagines. Cargo fire far from a suitable diversion, on the other hand, is not a fun day out.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
CosmicCruiser
Posts: 2209
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2005 3:01 am

Re: ETOPS and Tri-Jets

Mon Feb 26, 2018 5:17 pm

Interesting as I don't remember any mention when we first started flying Europe of the smoke and fire system being a player. At the time it would have been a DC-10 with smoke detection but no fire fighting capability except in the Haz cans. Many yrs later we had the system that would puncture the can and disperse an agent in to it.
 
BravoOne
Posts: 2669
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:27 pm

Re: ETOPS and Tri-Jets

Mon Feb 26, 2018 5:27 pm

CosmicCruiser wrote:
Interesting as I don't remember any mention when we first started flying Europe of the smoke and fire system being a player. At the time it would have been a DC-10 with smoke detection but no fire fighting capability except in the Haz cans. Many yrs later we had the system that would puncture the can and disperse an agent in to it.


Well as I said earlier you would not be doing an ETOPS flight on the NAT with a DC10, so you were not really a player. Also the DC10 was certified prior to any of todays long range twins. The 767ER is not a beyond 180+ airplane BTW.
 
CosmicCruiser
Posts: 2209
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2005 3:01 am

Re: ETOPS and Tri-Jets

Mon Feb 26, 2018 11:11 pm

Yeah, I know we weren't but got a little confused at some of the posts referring to tri-jets being required to fly ETOPS and fire system requirements.
 
Andre3K
Posts: 328
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 10:11 pm

Re: ETOPS and Tri-Jets

Mon Feb 26, 2018 11:19 pm

zeke wrote:
The A340 was designed for fly on one engine, it was called the A330.



Your joking right? The A330 has 2x the thrust if it looses one engine than the A340 (200 and 300) has if it lost 3.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Topic Author
Posts: 780
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: ETOPS and Tri-Jets

Tue Feb 27, 2018 7:15 am

BravoOne wrote:
Cargo fire suppression is usually the most restrictive element on ETOPS, For a 330' ETOPS qual you need the fire/smoke/fumes to be contained for 3:45. subtract 15 minutes for good measure, thus coming up with the 3:30 minute number. Boeing offer
enhanced fire suppression systems for operators desiring this extended ETOPS capability. Engine out is pretty straight forward and in real life is somewhat of a bit player in ETOPS diversions.


I don't understand this AT ALL. Why would the number of engines determine the amount of fire suppression you would need in the cargo hold?
 
USAirKid
Posts: 258
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 5:42 am

Re: ETOPS and Tri-Jets

Tue Feb 27, 2018 9:34 am

kitplane01 wrote:
BravoOne wrote:
Cargo fire suppression is usually the most restrictive element on ETOPS, For a 330' ETOPS qual you need the fire/smoke/fumes to be contained for 3:45. subtract 15 minutes for good measure, thus coming up with the 3:30 minute number. Boeing offer
enhanced fire suppression systems for operators desiring this extended ETOPS capability. Engine out is pretty straight forward and in real life is somewhat of a bit player in ETOPS diversions.


I don't understand this AT ALL. Why would the number of engines determine the amount of fire suppression you would need in the cargo hold?


ETOPS isn't just about losing an engine, its a standard for how far a flight is allowed to be from the nearest suitable airport.

One of the risks you have to manage is an inflight fire. So you'll need to be able to suppress the fire until you're able to land at an airport and evacuate.
 
BravoOne
Posts: 2669
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:27 pm

Re: ETOPS and Tri-Jets

Tue Feb 27, 2018 11:19 am

USAirKid wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
BravoOne wrote:
Cargo fire suppression is usually the most restrictive element on ETOPS, For a 330' ETOPS qual you need the fire/smoke/fumes to be contained for 3:45. subtract 15 minutes for good measure, thus coming up with the 3:30 minute number. Boeing offer
enhanced fire suppression systems for operators desiring this extended ETOPS capability. Engine out is pretty straight forward and in real life is somewhat of a bit player in ETOPS diversions.


I don't understand this AT ALL. Why would the number of engines determine the amount of fire suppression you would need in the cargo hold?


ETOPS isn't just about losing an engine, its a standard for how far a flight is allowed to be from the nearest suitable airport.

One of the risks you have to manage is an inflight fire. So you'll need to be able to suppress the fire until you're able to land at an airport and evacuate.


Well first of all the DC10 was never certified for ETOPS so the OPs question was misleading. Later the FAA came out with guidance regarding 180+ for Tris and Quads that were operating beyond the 180' ETOPS Area of Operations. That's the zero wind circles you would see on an ETOPS plotting chart (if used). So the number of engines is a factor for 2 twins, not so much Tris and Quads, Not that confusing. Suggest you Google AC120-42B and read up if you want to learn more. I doubt that nay DC10's flew 180+routes and probably the same for the MD11 for that matter.
 
User avatar
Faro
Posts: 1734
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 1:08 am

Re: ETOPS and Tri-Jets

Tue Feb 27, 2018 11:37 am

The term "fly" is misleading in respect of one-engined tri-jet and quad operations...they may be able to descend and approach to landing at very light weights on one engine only...

As for two-engine quad operations...they are certificated to descend, approach and proceed to go-around on two engines only...naturally at representative landing weights...they are not certificated to take-off and climb at higher gross weights with two engines out...


Faro
The chalice not my son
 
User avatar
Faro
Posts: 1734
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 1:08 am

Re: ETOPS and Tri-Jets

Tue Feb 27, 2018 11:45 am

Faro wrote:
The term "fly" is misleading in respect of one-engined tri-jet and quad operations...they may be able to descend and approach to landing at very light landing weights on one engine only...but I doubt that this is a certification requirement...

As for two-engine quad operations...they are certificated to descend, approach and proceed to go-around on two engines only...naturally at representative landing weights...they are not certificated to take-off and/or climb out at reresentative, higher gross weights with two engines out...


Faro
The chalice not my son
 
c933103
Posts: 1989
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: ETOPS and Tri-Jets

Tue Feb 27, 2018 12:41 pm

Speaking of which... I have read that the 747-8 have received ETOPS 330 certification .... But then, how about MD11/A340? What ETOPS do they have or are they just getting ETOPS 180? Granted the higher single engine out speed on these aircraft mean they can access more route than same ETOPS value on twins
Also, if I understand correctly, when calculating cargo compartment fire diversion time, the speed being used for calculation is cruise speed not engine out speed?
 
BravoOne
Posts: 2669
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:27 pm

Re: ETOPS and Tri-Jets

Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:07 pm

Are there any PAX MD11's operating anywhere in the world today? If not this is a moot point at this late date Ditto for Pax 747-8I's as they are not operating anywhere that would require 330 Extended ETOPS either. Recall that freighters are exempt from ETOPS compliance unless the operator choose some degree of compliance. Tri & Quads do not bump up against ETOPS until they want to go beyond 180. Pretty much the end of story, There is a new Advisory Circular AC120-42C coming out later this years so you can watch for developments within this doc.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Topic Author
Posts: 780
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: ETOPS and Tri-Jets

Wed Feb 28, 2018 6:16 am

BravoOne wrote:
USAirKid wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:

I don't understand this AT ALL. Why would the number of engines determine the amount of fire suppression you would need in the cargo hold?


ETOPS isn't just about losing an engine, its a standard for how far a flight is allowed to be from the nearest suitable airport.

One of the risks you have to manage is an inflight fire. So you'll need to be able to suppress the fire until you're able to land at an airport and evacuate.


Well first of all the DC10 was never certified for ETOPS so the OPs question was misleading. Later the FAA came out with guidance regarding 180+ for Tris and Quads that were operating beyond the 180' ETOPS Area of Operations. That's the zero wind circles you would see on an ETOPS plotting chart (if used). So the number of engines is a factor for 2 twins, not so much Tris and Quads, Not that confusing. Suggest you Google AC120-42B and read up if you want to learn more. I doubt that nay DC10's flew 180+routes and probably the same for the MD11 for that matter.


I do want to be clear.


I think you are telling me that there are rules for fire suppression, and the requirements vary depending on how far you are from a safe landing, but that these requirements are not ETOPS requirements and do not vary by # of engines.
 
SAAFNAV
Posts: 488
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 5:41 pm

Re: ETOPS and Tri-Jets

Wed Feb 28, 2018 8:20 am

kitplane01 wrote:
I do want to be clear.


I think you are telling me that there are rules for fire suppression, and the requirements vary depending on how far you are from a safe landing, but that these requirements are not ETOPS requirements and do not vary by # of engines.


Have you read the Wikipedia article? It states there how ETOPS has evolved from being only applicable to twin-engined aircraft to today's regulations begin concerned with all aircraft operating extended distances from diversion airports to include aspects like cargo fires or decompression events that might have a bigger impact than loosing one engine.
The initialism ETOPS now only refers to 'extended range operations '(FOR ALL AIRCRAFT) (except those not specified like state aircraft), instead of the 'Extended Range Operation with Two-Engine Airplanes' it started out as.
L-382 Loadmaster; ex C-130B Navigator
 
BravoOne
Posts: 2669
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:27 pm

Re: ETOPS and Tri-Jets

Wed Feb 28, 2018 10:54 am

SAAFNAV wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
I do want to be clear.


I think you are telling me that there are rules for fire suppression, and the requirements vary depending on how far you are from a safe landing, but that these requirements are not ETOPS requirements and do not vary by # of engines.


Have you read the Wikipedia article? It states there how ETOPS has evolved from being only applicable to twin-engined aircraft to today's regulations begin concerned with all aircraft operating extended distances from diversion airports to include aspects like cargo fires or decompression events that might have a bigger impact than loosing one engine.
The initialism ETOPS now only refers to 'extended range operations '(FOR ALL AIRCRAFT) (except those not specified like state aircraft), instead of the 'Extended Range Operation with Two-Engine Airplanes' it started out as.


This is all about ETOPS and yes the fire/smoke/fumes is an ETOPS defined restriction and it usually is the most restrictive event under the ETOPS banner. I don't read Wiki as I can read what Boeing and Airbus have created backed by the FAA/EASA regulations. I'll say it one more time. ETOPS applies to Tri and Quads when they are flown beyond 180 minutes. It applies to twins when they are beyond 60 minutes from a suitable airport for landing. In either case it does not apply to dedicated cargo aircraft no matter how many engines, There are typically three different worst case fuel scenarios built into an ETOPS flight that is prepared for each ETOPS leg:

1) Decompression requiring a descent to 10,000
2) Decompression & loss of 1 engine, again causing a descent to 10'000
3) Loss of 1 engine causing a drift down t an intermediate altitude

Depending on airframe/engine model & circumstances, either #1 or #2 can be the critical fuel scenario.

Lets imagine your flying from KSEA to PHNL 2 ETPS will be created by the flight planning computer and assuming weather is not a factor and all crash/fire/rescue is up at these airports, it might look something like this.

1st ETP = KPDX/KSFO
2nd ETP = KSFO/PHOG Usually the 2nd ETP will be the most critical for having enough fuel on board to get to the diversionary airport. If you are
planned to arrive over the 2nd ETP with less than required fuel you will need to add ETP fuel to your required fuel on board
for takeoff.

Their are numerous nuances to these scenarios so I'll just leave it at that. ETOPS beyond 180 can require many additional checks and balances and when you take it out to something like 330 it done on a flight by flight basis and not some blanket authority. The ability to contain a fire within a cargo hold becomes the critical factor. In this case 3:45 minus :15, for good measure comes out to be 330' ETOPS no matter if it is 2,3 or 4 engines.
That's all for now but there is so much more to this subject.
 
BravoOne
Posts: 2669
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:27 pm

Re: ETOPS and Tri-Jets

Wed Feb 28, 2018 2:13 pm

Found this :http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/qtr_2_07/AERO_Q207_article2.pdf It's a basic short course in ETOPS as it stands today under AC120-42B. AC120-42C is under review and should be out later this year after Boeing & Airbus, and whomever else that has a dog in the fight has made their concerns known. The ETOPS Rule of 2007 is critical to the evolution of current day ETOPS.
 
SAAFNAV
Posts: 488
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 5:41 pm

Re: ETOPS and Tri-Jets

Fri Mar 02, 2018 7:33 am

[quote="BravoOne"][/quote]


Yes, I wasn't suggesting that you learn anything from Wiki, BravoOne. But since some of the questions the OP is struggling with is addressed in there, I thought it would help.

I won't trust my life on Wiki, nor will I plan a flight according to them, but in terms of understanding what ETOPS is, it gives a good understanding.
L-382 Loadmaster; ex C-130B Navigator

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 31 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos