MD11Fanatic
Topic Author
Posts: 80
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 2:54 am

The DC-10's Version Of Etops Restrictions?

Wed Apr 25, 2007 9:08 pm

Do the large Trijets such as the DC-10 or MD-11 have any sort of restrictions or guidelines for operations, such as ETOPS is to the twin-engine aircraft, or are the DC-10s and the like exempt from any such operating procedures?

Also, do the four-engine jets have to follow ETOPS or any variation of such for operation?
 
Tristarsteve
Posts: 3364
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 11:04 pm

RE: The DC-10's Version Of Etops Restrictions?

Wed Apr 25, 2007 10:10 pm

No. The T in ETOPS stands for twin engine. 3 and 4 engine aircraft have always been exempt, although this is about to change. The FAA is bringing in restrictions for them.
 
User avatar
jetmech
Posts: 2316
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 2:14 am

RE: The DC-10's Version Of Etops Restrictions?

Wed Apr 25, 2007 10:17 pm

Quoting TristarSteve (Reply 1):
The FAA is bringing in restrictions for them.

EROP's ?

Regards, JetMech
JetMech split the back of his pants. He can feel the wind in his hair :shock: .
 
futurecaptain
Posts: 1918
Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2006 1:54 am

RE: The DC-10's Version Of Etops Restrictions?

Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:14 am

LROPS. Long Range Operations I believe included 3 and 4 engine jets. They arn't exempt from most safety procedures.
AirSO. ASpaceO. ASOnline. ASO.com ASO. ASO. ASO. ASO. ASO.
 
Fly2HMO
Posts: 7207
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2004 12:14 pm

RE: The DC-10's Version Of Etops Restrictions?

Thu Apr 26, 2007 4:24 pm

Quoting Futurecaptain (Reply 3):
LROPS. Long Range Operations I believe included 3 and 4 engine jets. They arn't exempt from most safety procedures.

Hmmm. I bet that has something to do with the BA 744 flight that flew LAX-LHR on 3 engines not that long ago doesn't it?  mischievous 
 
fxra
Posts: 600
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 1999 1:03 am

RE: The DC-10's Version Of Etops Restrictions?

Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:44 pm

the latest I read from the FAA now defines ETOPS as Extend Operations, removing the Twin. Basically from the few pages I read of it, for 3 and 4 engine aircraft, nothing much changes until you reach 180 minutes from suitable airport or for Over the Poles operations. And then the gist is the designation of ETOPS Alternate airports and having a plan for passenger handling should you divert.

The same ruling essentially allows twins to operate as far as the airline wants from an airport. The theory being engine and systems reliability have increased so much that diversions for other reasons (medical for example) almost equal mechanical diversions, and having for engines won't help a passenger having cardiac arrest. These new rules do not apply to 3 and 4 engines all cargo aircraft.

later
JD
Visualize Whirled Peas
 
Blackbird
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

RE: The DC-10's Version Of Etops Restrictions?

Sun Apr 29, 2007 3:08 am

So they want to take away all restrinctions from twinjets, and add restrictions to three and four engines? That sounds totally backward.

Andrea Kent
 
3201
Posts: 813
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2004 4:16 pm

RE: The DC-10's Version Of Etops Restrictions?

Sun Apr 29, 2007 7:41 am

Quoting FXRA (Reply 5):
the latest I read from the FAA now defines ETOPS as Extend Operations, removing the Twin

This is correct, as of Februrary when the new rule went into effect, although some aspects have delayed implementation.

Quoting Blackbird (Reply 6):
So they want to take away all restrinctions from twinjets, and add restrictions to three and four engines?

No. They tweaked and clarified and rationalized some of the twin rules, made some less conservative, introduced some new ones, and put them into the FAR's instead of just an AC. They added some new rules for 3- and 4-engined aircraft, but most are not restrictive (much or at all) as long as you don't attach an overly conservative interpretation to them.

While there was no tidy rule like ETOPS before, most or all operators already did analysis for decompression, for losing one engine, and for losing two engines, making sure they had enough fuel to divert safely, even if they had to dump fuel to level off.
7 hours aint long-haul
 
3201
Posts: 813
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2004 4:16 pm

RE: The DC-10's Version Of Etops Restrictions?

Sun Apr 29, 2007 7:51 am

Quoting FXRA (Reply 5):
The same ruling essentially allows twins to operate as far as the airline wants from an airport.

This is only partly true. The point is that now the distance the aircraft can be operated depends on the aircraft, the operating practices, and the support the operator has arranged, not on arbitrary limits. The limits have been clarified, and some new ones have been introduced. I would say the new rule makes a lot more sense than the old one.
7 hours aint long-haul

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests