FltAdmiralRitt
Topic Author
Posts: 77
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2013 7:57 pm

Twin Jets And The Fragility Of Etops

Tue Jun 18, 2013 9:02 pm

Over the years airliner twin jets have crossed oceans w/0 mishap with
some models gaining ETOPS 240 status. There have been a few close
calls but nothing that resulted in a water landing far from shore.
But chance is a funny thing, it has no memory, and one indicident
does preclude another. I cite as an example the two jets in the late 1960's
what went down off short shortly takeoff at LAX, within weeks of each other.

Looking at the pacific routes and how much twins utilize ETOPS. Now imagne
two water landings resulting from engine failure and consequent high casualties
within months of each other. There would be pressure to scale ETOPS
to very low minutes.

Would the public likely forget about the tragedy and
tolerate returning to higher ETOPS minutes.?
What about the capital value of all those long range twin engine aircraft?
Would Fuel prices/Passenger fear create a market for the
tri-jets again, or are they too much trouble and continue to build 4 engine jets?
 
rfields5421
Posts: 5547
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:45 am

RE: Twin Jets And The Fragility Of Etops

Tue Jun 18, 2013 10:16 pm

Quoting FltAdmiralRitt (Thread starter):
Now imagne two water landings resulting from engine failure and consequent high casualties within months of each other. There would be pressure to scale ETOPS to very low minutes.

No there would be no public pressure to scale ETOPS back. The flying public doesn't understand the concept of ETOPS.

For an accident to even be attributable to ETOPS - one engine would have to fail. The flight would have to divert to an ETOPS alternative airport. Then after a certain amount of time - at least an hour, more likely two hours - the second engine would have to fail from a completely different cause.

The Air Transat flight was not an ETOPS failure because ALL the engines quit working at the same time from the same cause. That can happen to a four engine jet as often as it happens to a twin.

Quoting FltAdmiralRitt (Thread starter):
Would the public likely forget about the tragedy and tolerate returning to higher ETOPS minutes.?

The flying public would not tolerate a cutback on twin-jet availability by tighter ETOPS. The cancellation of flights due to tighter ETOPS would cause much more disagreement and public outcry than a couple crashes, no matter what the casualty count.

Quoting FltAdmiralRitt (Thread starter):
Would Fuel prices/Passenger fear create a market for thebtri-jets again, or are they too much trouble and continue to build 4 engine jets?

No. Passenger fear is a non-factor.

There will always be quad jets until the technology changes significantly. For some routes, some frequencies and some markets - a quad works better. Especially the VLA market.
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9606
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: Twin Jets And The Fragility Of Etops

Tue Jun 18, 2013 11:04 pm

ETOPS programs are derived from statistics and engineering analysis. It is not based on opinions and anecdotal evidence.

If we saw multiple dual engine failures on twins, I would expect further review of the ETOPS requirements being implemented, but not an elimination of the program or drastic downgrade in ETOPS ratings for existing fleets. I’d expect an engineering review of what caused those crashes and new requirements to be put into the ETOPS program to prevent them from happening.

ETOPS programs have evolved over time. Not only has the diversion time restriction gone up, but additional requirements have been included in ETOPS programs. ETOPS is also not exclusively for twin engine aircraft now. Some requirements are required for all (including 4 engine) airplanes such as fire suppresion and increased fuel reserves to accommodate for decompression.

Crashes in general do not lead to drastic changes in the FARs that regulate airline operations. Usually a crash will have a number of recommendations and some will change design. The British Airways 777 crash changed the heat exchangers in the fuel system, the Air France A330 crash resulted in changes to the pitot static system, the TWA 800 747 crash resulted in strict fuel tank ignition requirements, the Turkish 737 crash in Amsterdam resulted in Radio Altimeter changes. In general, such crashes would lead to design changes, and potentially to a revision of the FARs to introduce new requirements, but they aren’t going to scrap ETOPS or downgrade the existing fleet. The safety analysis process used to certify an airplane always can use improvement, but it is an extremely robust process. I don’t see public opinion outweighing engineering expertise. 3 and 4 engine airplanes aren't coming back out of fear of loss of ETOPS.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
FltAdmiralRitt
Topic Author
Posts: 77
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2013 7:57 pm

RE: Twin Jets And The Fragility Of Etops

Wed Jun 19, 2013 4:50 pm

Maybe the public doens't know about ETOPS now, but after an ocean landing
You can be sure that the MEDIA will make sure the public MISUNDERSTANDS IT.
Don't underestimate the power of hyperbole.

On a side note, I think some of the more seasoned transpacific fliers know that a
mid ocean ditch is giant crapshoot, On a rough ocean you can be pretty certain
of a break up, and high casualties. Many must think all that talk about water landing
equipment/proceedures is a sedative for the extra nervous types.
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9606
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: Twin Jets And The Fragility Of Etops

Wed Jun 19, 2013 8:05 pm

Quoting FltAdmiralRitt (Reply 3):
Many must think all that talk about water landing
equipment/proceedures is a sedative for the extra nervous types.

There have been two high profile water landings where everyone survived in the last few years with the US Airways crash in New York and the Lion Air crash in Bali. The Ethiopian crash in the ocean was surviveable, even though the airplane broke up. It has certainly been proven that water landings are surviveable. Now I agree a water landing in the ocean in bad weather may be worse and getting everyone into a raft with a sinking plane may not be possible, but the water landing procedures are not just sedatives for the nervous types.

I don't think there is much belief that 2 engine airplanes overwater are less safe than 4 engine planes are. Nowadays, diversions are rarely caused by engine shutdowns. They are caused by many factors.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
rfields5421
Posts: 5547
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:45 am

RE: Twin Jets And The Fragility Of Etops

Wed Jun 19, 2013 11:00 pm

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 4):
agree a water landing in the ocean in bad weather may be worse and getting everyone into a raft with a sinking plane may not be possible,

On Octoboer 26, 1978 - a US Navy P-3 was forced to ditch is stormy weather about 800 miles from Adak and Shemya.

The pilots set the plane down in 25 foot swells with a runaway prop and fire visible around the engine.

10 of the 15 people on board survived.

It was a very bad scenario.

http://www.vpnavy.com/vp9586.html
 
timz
Posts: 6084
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 1999 7:43 am

RE: Twin Jets And The Fragility Of Etops

Thu Jun 20, 2013 12:19 am

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 1):
Passenger fear is a non-factor.

I guess you mean it doesn't exist. That'll continue to be true as long as twins stay in the air.
 
User avatar
7BOEING7
Posts: 2331
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:28 pm

RE: Twin Jets And The Fragility Of Etops

Thu Jun 20, 2013 12:44 am

Quoting FltAdmiralRitt (Reply 3):
Maybe the public doens't know about ETOPS now, but after an ocean landing
You can be sure that the MEDIA will make sure the public MISUNDERSTANDS IT.
Don't underestimate the power of hyperbole.

On a side note, I think some of the more seasoned transpacific fliers know that a
mid ocean ditch is giant crapshoot, On a rough ocean you can be pretty certain
of a break up, and high casualties. Many must think all that talk about water landing
equipment/proceedures is a sedative for the extra nervous types.

Any time you lose all your engines (2 or 4) it's a crapshoot whether it be over land or water. Not everybody will be as lucky as the Air Canada 767, Air Transat 330 or British Airways 777 passengers -- which if they were 4 engine airplanes would have had 4 engines out . Was there a public outcry to halt all two engine ETOPS flights -- NO! Your average passenger doesn't care until maybe 3 or 4 all fall out of the sky in a very short time frame -- then they'll quit flying, period.

I'll take my chances with a two engine airplane under an ETOPS maintenance program that flies over water over a two engine airplane not under an ETOPS maintenance program flying over land. Waters mostly flat. For 99.999% of the passengers that get on an airplane, crashing is not on their mind be it over water or land.

Since you have no credentials, I don't know why i'm wasting my time with this ridiculous thread.
 
Viscount724
Posts: 18840
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: Twin Jets And The Fragility Of Etops

Thu Jun 20, 2013 1:24 am

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 2):
ETOPS is also not exclusively for twin engine aircraft now. Some requirements are required for all (including 4 engine) airplanes such as fire suppresion and increased fuel reserves to accommodate for decompression.

The FAA changed its definition of ETOPS to simply "Extended Operations" in 2007 for those reasons.
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 3920
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

RE: Twin Jets And The Fragility Of Etops

Thu Jun 20, 2013 2:30 am

Quoting FltAdmiralRitt (Thread starter):
I cite as an example the two jets in the late 1960's
what went down off short shortly takeoff at LAX, within weeks of each other.

Actually they crashed 5 days apart in 1969 and one of them crashed on approach, not takeoff. It was an SK DC-8 and UA 727. The 727 accident is what led to the mandate for Standby batteries and independently powered Standby Instruments.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 1):
For an accident to even be attributable to ETOPS - one engine would have to fail. The flight would have to divert to an ETOPS alternative airport. Then after a certain amount of time - at least an hour, more likely two hours - the second engine would have to fail from a completely different cause.

Yeah, and almost any scenario you could devise for an ETOPS accident could just as easily happen to a 3-4 engine jet. When was the last time both engines on a twin failed for something that would have failed all engines on a 4 engine airplane? Never.

I agree this is not a productive thread anymore. The OP asked a valid question and it was answered. ETOPS flying is safe. There has never ever been an accident that was caused by ETOPS for a twin engine airplane, that wasn't attributed to a totally unrelated cause.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17055
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: Twin Jets And The Fragility Of Etops

Thu Jun 20, 2013 3:15 am

Quoting FltAdmiralRitt (Thread starter):
But chance is a funny thing, it has no memory, and one indicident
does preclude another. I cite as an example the two jets in the late 1960's
what went down off short shortly takeoff at LAX, within weeks of each other.

"Chance" is a bad way to put it since ETOPS "non-accident rates" are not pure statistics. It's not like the dice are thrown every time an ETOPS flight operates. Thus in this case "chance" does indeed have memory. If one crash happened there would be a thorough review of procedures (just like with any crash). Thus the chances of that particular incident happening again decrease.

ETOPS has been around for nigh on forty years now without one single fatality. One or two crashes would not invalidate the entire system.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
Max Q
Posts: 5628
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: Twin Jets And The Fragility Of Etops

Thu Jun 20, 2013 5:38 am

If you go down in the North Atlantic in winter the chances of survival are minimal.



Have any of you seen the massive seas of this ocean at its worst ?



forget it.
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17055
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: Twin Jets And The Fragility Of Etops

Thu Jun 20, 2013 6:54 am

Quoting Max Q (Reply 11):
If you go down in the North Atlantic in winter the chances of survival are minimal.

Certainly, and the unpalatable survival chances of a mid-ocean ditching (or mid-Polar-Icecap "landing") are why the regs are so stringent on ETOPS. If a dual unrelated engine failure simply led to a glide to the nearest usable runway, the regs would be far less tough.

I'm not an expert on this kind of risk analysis but AFAIK the assumption is that the chances of a ditching due to dual unrelated engine failure, while possible, is so unlikely that the risk incurred while operating under ETOPS is still acceptable. Looking at CS25, "Adequate Safety Margin" forces manufacturers and operators to prove such an incident is "extremely remote", defined as 1 in 10 000 000 to 1 in 1 000 000 000 chance and described as "Unlikely to occur during the life of a fleet but still possible". This is the same probability given to "Hitting an obstacle in the Net Take-Off Path".

So yes, if a plane goes down in the mid-Atlantic everyone aboard will likely die regardless of the success or not of the ditching, but the risk of a ditching is so vanishingly remote the outcome of such is ignored.


I'd venture the risk of a plane going down due to a birdstrike, a microburst or a mid-air collision is higher than any risk posed by ETOPS, and yet those are somehow seen as acceptable risks.

Quoting FltAdmiralRitt (Thread starter):
FltAdmiralRitt

Kzinti reference? Big grin

[Edited 2013-06-20 00:36:47]
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
travelavnut
Posts: 1327
Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 1:35 pm

RE: Twin Jets And The Fragility Of Etops

Thu Jun 20, 2013 7:44 am

Ow no, not this again...... Got the feeling the OP just recently learned about ETOPS.

Quoting FltAdmiralRitt (Reply 3):
Don't underestimate the power of hyperbole.

And don't underestimate how quickly people forget news and events nowadays.

Quoting FltAdmiralRitt (Reply 3):
On a side note, I think some of the more seasoned transpacific fliers know that a
mid ocean ditch is giant crapshoot,

Luckily, partly because of ETOPS, that doesn't seem to happen anymore.

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 7):
I don't know why i'm wasting my time with this ridiculous thread.

You're quite right, bye bye   

[Edited 2013-06-20 00:46:43]
Live From Amsterdam!
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9606
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: Twin Jets And The Fragility Of Etops

Thu Jun 20, 2013 4:20 pm

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 12):
I'm not an expert on this kind of risk analysis but AFAIK the assumption is that the chances of a ditching due to dual unrelated engine failure, while possible, is so unlikely that the risk incurred while operating under ETOPS is still acceptable. Looking at CS25, "Adequate Safety Margin" forces manufacturers and operators to prove such an incident is "extremely remote", defined as 1 in 10 000 000 to 1 in 1 000 000 000 chance and described as "Unlikely to occur during the life of a fleet but still possible". This is the same probability given to "Hitting an obstacle in the Net Take-Off Path".

FAR 25.1309 has 4 different categories of failure (Minor, Major, Hazardous and Catastrophic) and different reliability rates based on the type of failure. Dual engine failure on an ETOPS flight would usually fit in the Catastrophic category (just like loss of directional control, uncontrolled flight into terrain, etc). For the purpose of reliability requirements it is treated as an unsurviveable event and therefore required to have a probability below 1 in 1 Billion. If you are ever curious, here’s the AC describing the FAR: http://www.faa.gov/regulations_polic...ument.information/documentID/22680
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
nomadd22
Posts: 1566
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:42 pm

RE: Twin Jets And The Fragility Of Etops

Thu Jun 20, 2013 6:55 pm

I'm sure USCG maintenance standards weren't exactly airliner class, but I've personally been on a C-130 that lost two engines an hour apart for unrelated reasons. I'd probably be a little nervous on a one engine airliner four hours out.
Anon
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17055
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: Twin Jets And The Fragility Of Etops

Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:40 pm

Quoting nomadd22 (Reply 15):
I'm sure USCG maintenance standards weren't exactly airliner class, but I've personally been on a C-130 that lost two engines an hour apart for unrelated reasons. I'd probably be a little nervous on a one engine airliner four hours out.

Apart from the maintenance, the C-130 and its engines were never designed for ETOPS operations. A 777, for example, was designed for ETOPS from the time it was just a twinkle in the eyes of the Boeing engineers.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
PPVRA
Posts: 7864
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: Twin Jets And The Fragility Of Etops

Fri Jun 21, 2013 6:10 pm

Quoting FltAdmiralRitt (Thread starter):
I cite as an example the two jets in the late 1960's
what went down off short shortly takeoff at LAX, within weeks of each other.

Was it an ETOPS failure event if they occurred right next to the airport?
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
User avatar
7BOEING7
Posts: 2331
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:28 pm

RE: Twin Jets And The Fragility Of Etops

Sat Jun 22, 2013 12:44 am

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 17):
Was it an ETOPS failure event if they occurred right next to the airport?

There was no ETOPS back then but if a 777 used for ETOPS had an engine failure shortly after takeoff it would be looked at as an ETOPS event for that engine depending on the cause.
 
rfields5421
Posts: 5547
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:45 am

RE: Twin Jets And The Fragility Of Etops

Sun Jun 23, 2013 4:15 am

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 17):
Was it an ETOPS failure event if they occurred right next to the airport?

No.

An ETOPS failure would only be if the aircraft was unable to reach safety within the allowed single engine operational range/ time.

The contention of folks who say ETOPS for twin jets are unnecessarily risking passengers / crew lives is that the distance/ time the jets are allowed to fly from 'safety' airports is excessive.

The contention is that a three hour flight time on one engine (ETOPS 180) increases the chance of a second engine failure over a two hour flight time (ETOPS 120).

The contention of ETOPS requlators and the airlines is that 180 minutes is a safe operating margin, and even up to 240 minutes is a safe single engine operating margin.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17055
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: Twin Jets And The Fragility Of Etops

Sun Jun 23, 2013 6:35 am

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 19):
The contention of ETOPS requlators and the airlines is that 180 minutes is a safe operating margin, and even up to 240 minutes is a safe single engine operating margin.

Air New Zealand is going for ETOPS330. Worst case of 5½ hours on one engine.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...7-300ers-with-330min-etops-365992/
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3185
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

RE: Twin Jets And The Fragility Of Etops

Sun Jun 23, 2013 5:10 pm

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 19):
An ETOPS failure would only be if the aircraft was unable to reach safety within the allowed single engine operational range/ time.

For ETOPS statistical purposes, failures are entered into the database if they occur anywhere in the flight profile.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 3920
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

RE: Twin Jets And The Fragility Of Etops

Mon Jun 24, 2013 7:51 pm

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 17):
Quoting FltAdmiralRitt (Thread starter):
I cite as an example the two jets in the late 1960's
what went down off short shortly takeoff at LAX, within weeks of each other.

Was it an ETOPS failure event if they occurred right next to the airport?

I think the OP was referring to how much safer air travel has become, not suggesting the LAX accidents were ETOPS related.

The SK DC-8 landed short of the runway in Santa Monica Bay due to a Navigation error; the UA 727 crashed in the bay after takeoff due to loss of electrical power to their instruments and it was foggy so they had no attitude display,

Predated ETOPS by like 20 years and no relation to ETOPS.
 
rfields5421
Posts: 5547
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:45 am

RE: Twin Jets And The Fragility Of Etops

Mon Jun 24, 2013 11:26 pm

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 21):
For ETOPS statistical purposes, failures are entered into the database if they occur anywhere in the flight profile.

Yes.

But the failure we are talking about is one in which the ETOPS specs are not sufficient to get an aircraft with an engine out to safety.

The ETOPS system doesn't fail until that occurs.
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3185
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

RE: Twin Jets And The Fragility Of Etops

Tue Jun 25, 2013 12:50 pm

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 23):
But the failure we are talking about is one in which the ETOPS specs are not sufficient to get an aircraft with an engine out to safety.

The ETOPS system doesn't fail until that occurs.

But by counting a failure anywhere in the flight profile, the airframe/engine combination must have sufficient reliability for the whole flight profile. This lowers the probability of critical failures during the ETOPS phase of flight.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
cornutt
Posts: 333
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2013 6:57 am

RE: Twin Jets And The Fragility Of Etops

Thu Jun 27, 2013 3:58 am

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 19):
The contention is that a three hour flight time on one engine (ETOPS 180) increases the chance of a second engine failure over a two hour flight time (ETOPS 120).

You can calculate the probability of an engine failure occurring within a certain amount of flight time. Yes, in general, the longer you fly the more exposure you have to that fault. However, if you can make everything robust enough so that the standard for the probability of a catastrophic failure is met even with the longer exposure period, then it doesn't matter. That's what ETOPS is all about... re-evaluating which failures are considered catastrophic assuming that an intact landing within the exposure window will always be impossible, and then designing systems and procedures to meet the probability standard.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], ikolkyo, n0ct and 21 guests