AF Lost It's 180 Min Etops For 777..

Beaucaire · Wed Nov 28, 2007 9:48 pm

As reported on French aviation forum Radiocockpit,AF has lost its ETOPS 180 min. for their 777 and has to live with 120 ETOPS...
No official confirmation yet,but usually Radiocokpit is quite reliable and fed by AF members..
Not a very good publicity for GE...

.and hopes for additional A340's...

[Edited 2007-11-28 13:56:44]

SN-MD11 · Wed Nov 28, 2007 10:04 pm

I've just heard the same thing from an AF pilot: AF loses ETOPS 180 for 777 fleet.

Will they now be downgraded to 120 or 138 ?

It's certainly a hurdle for some specific AF sectors such as Caribbean.

I guess some people at AF Industries (maintenance) are going to be in trouble...

Two IES in such a short period is a lot.

PHKLM · Wed Nov 28, 2007 10:04 pm

Will this effect any routes other than ORY-SXM (and other destinations in the Caribbean) and CDG-SCL?
I can't think of any other routes that would require 180 min ETOPS.

imiakhtar · Wed Nov 28, 2007 10:06 pm

I guess this is due to the IFSD and diversion of 773-ER recently to LED. Does AF actually require the ETOPS 180 for any of it's routes?

col · Wed Nov 28, 2007 10:08 pm

I guess the GE problems are specific to AF????

Stitch · Wed Nov 28, 2007 10:10 pm

Quoting Col (Reply 4):
I guess the GE problems are specific to AF?

The problem is not with GE. It's with AF's maintenance depots.

Once they get their act together again, they'll be granted ETOPS-180 so I don't see them buying/leasing more A340s.

[Edited 2007-11-28 14:10:57]

PHKLM · Wed Nov 28, 2007 10:11 pm

Quoting Imiakhtar (Reply 3):
Does AF actually require the ETOPS 180 for any of it's routes?

Yes, certainly. It's needed on Paris - Caribbean (operated with 777) and CDG-SCL (777), CDG-ACC (or any countries close to Ivory Coast) but no others. As for Africa and the Caribbean, this will involve longer flight times and more fuel burn, but for SCL it might become an issue as the flight will approach 7500nm.

AirTranTUS · Wed Nov 28, 2007 10:15 pm

Quoting Beaucaire (Thread starter):
Not a very good publicity for GE...

Not really. One engine failure after how many million flight hours? That proves that the engine is very reliable. I see AF getting 207 ETOPS back soon.

Quoting Beaucaire (Thread starter):
and hopes for additional A340's...

More doubtful than the above. One incident isn't a reason for getting different aircraft. If that were so, they would have dumped all A340's after the YYZ incident.

PHKLM · Wed Nov 28, 2007 10:25 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 5):

Once they get their act together again, they'll be granted ETOPS-180 so I don't see them buying/leasing more A340s.

Theoretical question: if they let the MX do by KLM MX in AMS (familiar with the 777 and GE also) for a small number of planes that need to do the required ETOPS routes, would they get the ETOPS certificate back instantly?

Putnik · Wed Nov 28, 2007 11:34 pm

Can you, please, for all of us who enjoy airplanes immensely but have limited knowledge of mechanical issues explain:
How an airline lose, or for that matter obtain ETOPS certificates?
How can it drop from one ETOPS to another?
What's the deal here?
Thanks! bigthumbsup

YULYMX · Wed Nov 28, 2007 11:41 pm

Quoting PHKLM (Reply 2):

A343 go daily to SXM
B773 from ORLY go to Guadeloupe and Martinique

MYT321 · Wed Nov 28, 2007 11:46 pm

I'll second that Putnik. I've got a a pretty good idea, but it would be good for someone to spell the whole ETOPS thing out for us.

incitatus · Wed Nov 28, 2007 11:50 pm

Quoting PHKLM (Reply 6):
, this will involve longer flight times and more fuel burn, but for SCL it might become an issue as the flight will approach 7500nm.

I am thinking it will not be an issue for CDG-SCL. From Ilha do Sal to NE Brazil it is about 1750 mi. It is only a short detour from the shortest route.

YULYMX · Wed Nov 28, 2007 11:51 pm

Quoting Putnik (Reply 9):

I would guess Records of maintenance or diversion due to Engines problems over past months-yrs???

Getting it back upgrade to higher level could take longer?

But loosing it is suprising, B777 was ETOPS certified out of Production???

LTU932 · Wed Nov 28, 2007 11:52 pm

Quoting PHKLM (Reply 2):
Will this effect any routes other than ORY-SXM (and other destinations in the Caribbean)

CDG-SXM (the route isn't flown from ORY) is flown with an A343, so ETOPS doesn't apply.

Palladium · Wed Nov 28, 2007 11:52 pm

What is ETOPS?

I feel dumb asking this question

YULYMX · Wed Nov 28, 2007 11:57 pm

Quoting Palladium (Reply 15):

Engine turn or passengers swims Smile

ETOPS (Extended-range Twin-engine Operational Performance Standards)

So long range Aircraft B767, B777, A333, A332, some A319 A320, B737 are ETOPS certified to flight over area water that dont have alternated airport incase of one engine failure

Stitch · Wed Nov 28, 2007 11:57 pm

Quoting Putnik (Reply 9):
How an airline lose, or for that matter obtain ETOPS certificates? How can it drop from one ETOPS to another?

This is a decent overview - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS.

The 777 has an ETOPS type certificate and Air France has an ETOPS operational certification. The FAA grants a 180-minute ETOPS type certificate to the 777 while the JAA (the EU agency) only grants a 120-minute one. In order to get a 180-minute type certificate, the operator must be trouble-free for one year.

I am guessing Air France has lost their 180-minute ETOPS operational certification, but the JAA might have pulled their 180-minute 777 ETOPS type certificate. Either way, this busts them down to 120-minutes.

If the JAA pulled their 777 ETOPS type certificate, does anyone know if they have to be trouble-free for another year?

Stitch · Wed Nov 28, 2007 11:59 pm

Quoting YULYMX (Reply 13):
But loosing it is suprising, B777 was ETOPS certified out of Production?

The FAA certified the 777 for ETOPS-180 from entry into service.

The JAA certified the 777 for ETOPS-120 from entry into service. ETOPS-180 was granted on an airline-by-airline basis after one year of trouble-free service.

YULYMX · Thu Nov 29, 2007 12:02 am

there are plenty of discussion on here regarding ETOPS certification can be 120, 180, 217minutes to fly on one engine to alternate airport...

EX: flight from East cost Usa to Europe will take a northern path so if one of the 2 engines fail or have a problemes they will divert to closest airport that could accomodate the aircraft... YYT, Groenland, iceland, acores, SHH are examples

Valkyrie01 · Thu Nov 29, 2007 1:34 am

Quoting Beaucaire (Thread starter):
Not a very good publicity for GE...

What if there is an APU issue or other ETOPS Related issue(nothing related to the GE engines)??????

Alessandro · Thu Nov 29, 2007 1:58 am

Quoting Palladium (Reply 15):
What is ETOPS?

I feel dumb asking this question

Nah, I asked million more stupid questions.
ETOPS means how many minutes to nearest landable airport one aircraft with 2 engines are allowed to fly.
Air France has had a few engine failures over Russia with the B777 (2 engined) and had to land, that´s why
they now face stricter ETOPS rules?

carl50mq · Thu Nov 29, 2007 4:17 am

Hello all,
Hello Beaucaire, I was Starship on Radiocockpit.

The loss of the certification ETOPS 180 means an increase of flight time by 25 minutes on a FDF/ORY, 15 minutes on a PTP/ORY.

Carl, i'm a all new A.netter member with a low english level...

mmedford · Thu Nov 29, 2007 5:57 am

Well to add to the ETOPS, in the near future it will be Extended Operations...

as others have said, ETOPS really is for utmost safety. With .002 reliability of 1000 hours ETOPS-120 is granted.

But once AF gets their MX act together, they will regain their ETOPS status.

About the ETOPS regarding the 777, if I remember correctly upon deployment to fleets. The FAA granted immediately 1080/270 ETOPS to all 777s, but the JAA only granted 120 ETOPS later upgrading to 180 ETOPS.

2H4 · Thu Nov 29, 2007 6:12 am

The ramifications of a downgrade in ETOPS certification must be expensive. Are long-haul pilots ever under pressure to keep running a poorly-performing engine....perhaps damaging the engine in the process....to avoid an IFSD?

2H4

Beaucaire · Thu Nov 29, 2007 6:46 am

Quoting Carl50mq (Reply 22):
Hello all,
Hello Beaucaire, I was Starship on Radiocockpit.

The loss of the certification ETOPS 180 means an increase of flight time by 25 minutes on a FDF/ORY, 15 minutes on a PTP/ORY.

Carl, i'm a all new A.netter member with a low english level...

Bonjour Carl- thanks for the posting and your joining in a.net..
a.net needs some more "French blood" and good insider knowledge of French aviation,which unfortunately resumes mostly of Air France matters.
Sur a. net tu peut ameliorer ton Anglais .(et moi mon Francais sur Radiocokpit..)

[Edited 2007-11-28 23:05:24]

jetmech · Thu Nov 29, 2007 6:58 am

Quoting SN-MD11 (Reply 1):
I guess some people at AF Industries (maintenance) are going to be in trouble...

Quoting Stitch (Reply 5):
It's with AF's maintenance depots.

So it was a maintenance issue that caused this loss of 180 ETOPS?

Quoting Mmedford (Reply 23):
About the ETOPS regarding the 777, if I remember correctly upon deployment to fleets. The FAA granted immediately 1080/270 ETOPS to all 777s, but the JAA only granted 120 ETOPS later upgrading to 180 ETOPS.

The 777 itself may have 270 ETOPS, but the airline itself has to earn the right to exercise the privilege. The airline must prove that it's maintenance and operational systems are of a high enough standard that the likelihood of an IFSD is very rare. Boeing may well have designed the 777 to a standard that it can undertake ETOPS flights, but it is up to the airline to prove that they can maintain and operate the 777 to a similar, high standard.

Regards, JetMech

Leskova · Thu Nov 29, 2007 7:08 am

Quoting AirTranTUS (Reply 7):
Quoting Beaucaire (Thread starter):
Not a very good publicity for GE...

Not really. One engine failure after how many million flight hours? That proves that the engine is very reliable. I see AF getting 207 ETOPS back soon.

Unlikely - they never had ETOPS 207, which, I believe, doesn't even exist in Europe: they had, and most likely soon will have again, ETOPS 180.

Quoting Carl50mq (Reply 22):
Carl, i'm a all new A.netter member with a low english level...

Welcome to a.net.

sstsomeday · Thu Nov 29, 2007 7:36 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 18):
The FAA certified the 777 for ETOPS-180 from entry into service.

The JAA certified the 777 for ETOPS-120 from entry into service. ETOPS-180 was granted on an airline-by-airline basis after one year of trouble-free service.

I must say I like the way they award and enforce ETOPS certification, and that it is airline-specific. I'm glad the governing bodies are not complacent in this regard.

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 24):
Are long-haul pilots ever under pressure to keep running a poorly-performing engine....perhaps damaging the engine in the process....to avoid an IFSD?

I doubt it. If something like that ever became public I would suggest the airline would suffer tremendously (P.R.) and possibly lose their certification to fly passengers. Rather, I would suggest that the requirement ot be incident-free for a year is motivation for the maintenance departments of airlines to operate at an very high standard, especially regarding long range twins. Well done, FAA and JAA.

AlexPorter · Thu Nov 29, 2007 7:41 am

Quoting PHKLM (Reply 6):
Yes, certainly. It's needed on Paris - Caribbean (operated with 777) and CDG-SCL (777), CDG-ACC (or any countries close to Ivory Coast) but no others

It affects the Caribbean most, but obviously not on A340/B747 flights if using ETOPS-120. ACC flights only need to go slightly west to be in ETOPS-120 (at first I was confused about ACC but looking at the Great Circle Mapper, I see that the middle of the Sahara is an ETOPS area, and the only ETOPS-120 land area outside of Antarctica, far northern Canada, far northern Greenland, and some tiny, airport-free islands. SCL flights will need to fly slightly southeast of normal, but on such a long flight that sort of diversion doesn't add much length to the route, relatively speaking. However, if they get ETOPS-138, the ACC restrictions are gone and the SCL restrictions are smaller, but the Caribbean is still affected.

gigneil · Thu Nov 29, 2007 7:46 am

Quoting AirTranTUS (Reply 7):
One engine failure after how many million flight hours?

One engine failure is not enough to have your ETOPS status changed.

NS

goldorak · Thu Nov 29, 2007 7:49 am

Sorry, but I don't understand the relationship with AF maintenance in this specific case. In the other thread by Beaucaire about the emergency landing in LED, there wee some pictures from a Russian forum showing that the engine was damaged may be by birds (?) so why AF should lose ETOPS180 if they are not responsible of this incident. Sorry if my question seems stupid but I'm not a specialist of that and any explanation would b welcome.
thank you
Goldorak

Beaucaire · Thu Nov 29, 2007 8:21 am

I agree with Goldorack in that there is no question about AF-maintenace capability..
AF have never had any issues with their A330 fleet and no IFSD's on those flights.AF maintenance is as good as any maintenance could possibly be.
But their 777's do use a specific GE engine that for some reason seems to have a worse MTBF than other engines.
The incident in St. Petersburg has clearly been affected by external events (be it hail,birdstrike or any other form of mechanical ingestion ) so it's bad luck that this incident appears on a 777 with GE engines,but in that particular case the conditions of the compressor-blades ,holes on the forward-trailing edge of the wing and disruption of horizontal stabilizer joints speak a clear language.
My initial comment about GE's credibility is therefore in this case not applicable.

milan320 · Thu Nov 29, 2007 8:56 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 5):
The problem is not with GE. It's with AF's maintenance depots.

Quoting Mmedford (Reply 23):
But once AF gets their MX act together, they will regain their ETOPS status.

What do you mean gets their MX act together? How is it that they have their act together for the A332/A333 aircraft but not for the 777? Just as Beaucaire points out above. No, it just couldn't be an engine issue could it? sarcastic

.

/Milan320

zeke · Thu Nov 29, 2007 9:02 am

Quoting AirTranTUS (Reply 7):
Not really. One engine failure after how many million flight hours? That proves that the engine is very reliable. I see AF getting 207 ETOPS back soon.

The entire GE90-11X fleet has only just over 1 million hours, AF does not have anywhere near a million hours on the 300ER fleet.

Quoting Putnik (Reply 9):
How an airline lose, or for that matter obtain ETOPS certificates?

Each airline registers its aircraft in a particular country, that country local CAA issues an ETOPS approval as part of the air operators certificate (AOC). It generally an attachment or condition placed onto the AOC, not a certificate in its own right. The AOC is the overall approval for the airline to operate, it includes they types of aircraft, ports/routes, and restrictions or approvals like ETOPS.

The process for obtaining an AOC is long and expensive for an airline, generally the airline has to document all its processes and procedures and show that it has adequate staff and systems in place to run an airline.

ETOPS is an operational approval which is added to an AOC. When applying for an ETOPS approval, the carrier will have to specify the aircraft type, routes, diversions, staff, training, and maintenance systems in place, and generally also requires demonstrate over time that the systems and processes are working to get an increases in the range they are allowed to plan on one engine.

Quoting Putnik (Reply 9):
How can it drop from one ETOPS to another?

Just approach the local CAA for an increase or downgrade, or the local CAA may impose a downgrade on the AOC at any time by revoking the approval..

Only downgrade I can remember of late was DJ. ETOPS parts are more expensive, DJ said it could not justify the gains made by ETOPS approval (shorter flight paths) against the additional maintenance costs.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 17):
The 777 has an ETOPS type certificate and Air France has an ETOPS operational certification. The FAA grants a 180-minute ETOPS type certificate to the 777 while the JAA (the EU agency) only grants a 120-minute one. In order to get a 180-minute type certificate, the operator must be trouble-free for one year.

The 777 does not have "ETOPS operational certification", it has been "found suitable" ETOPS, but the TCDS clearly says "This finding does not constitute approval to conduct 207-minute ETOPS operations."

Quoting Stitch (Reply 17):
I am guessing Air France has lost their 180-minute ETOPS operational certification, but the JAA might have pulled their 180-minute 777 ETOPS type certificate. Either way, this busts them down to 120-minutes.

It would be an issue between the DGAC and AF, nothing to do with the JAA. The 777 does not have a "180-minute 777 ETOPS type certificate".

wolflair · Thu Nov 29, 2007 9:30 am

Quoting Goldorak (Reply 31):
Sorry, but I don't understand the relationship with AF maintenance in this specific case. In the other thread by Beaucaire about the emergency landing in LED, there wee some pictures from a Russian forum showing that the engine was damaged may be by birds (?) so why AF should lose ETOPS180 if they are not responsible of this incident. Sorry if my question seems stupid but I'm not a specialist of that and any explanation would b welcome.
thank you

It is probable that as a result of IFSD an investigation was started into maintenance procedures (probably only regarting the a/c involved) and some issues may have been found. As a precautory measure, ETOPS-180 certification is revoked.

Another possibility is that there were already minor issues detected that did not prompted by themselves to revoke the certificate. However, after an IFSD incident, the certification is revoked.

If the IFSD was indeed as a result of a birdstrike or any other non-maintenance issue, then the certificate would be reinstated straight away after the investigation is concluded.

worldrider · Thu Nov 29, 2007 9:35 am

Quoting AirTranTUS (Reply 7):
More doubtful than the above. One incident isn't a reason for getting different aircraft. If that were so, they would have dumped all A340's after the YYZ incident.

ans for what reason? do you remember the cause of that accident?

Flying Belgian · Thu Nov 29, 2007 9:51 am

As far as I remember, Etihad encountered the same problems as AF with the same type of GE engines on their 777s.

FB.

Beaucaire · Thu Nov 29, 2007 9:56 am

also Malaysian has IFSD's on thier 777's ..

PHKLM · Thu Nov 29, 2007 10:24 am

Quoting Flying Belgian (Reply 37):
Etihad encountered the same problems as AF with the same type of GE engines on their 777s.

Sorry but I lost track. Revoking the AF ETOPS certificate follows an IFSD after hail-damage or a bird strike. Etihad has "the same problems" so do you mean hail and birds? Or what? What are you trying to say Flying Belgian?

Quoting Beaucaire (Reply 38):
also Malaysian has IFSD's on thier 777's .

Beaucaire, is that to imply GE is at fault? At the same time you say it was external events that damaged the engine, not an MX or design issue. I'd say although very rare, IFSD's happen. And it is no statistical impossibility that you have no accidents in 5 years and then 2 in one week; authorities should see through that. If it's 10 times black in a row with roulette... Well, you know the rest.

I have the feeling a lot of conclusions are being drawn prematurely.

Beaucaire · Thu Nov 29, 2007 10:59 am

I clearly state in my last post that I think in this particular case the damage on the aileron (hor.stabalizer ) seems to indicate some form of projection or impact with any unknown item.
So it is clearly premature to assume the incident on the St.Petersburg landing was due to an engine failure but COULD have been caused by external cause.
The picture of the compressor-blades speak a quite strong language-as does the picture with the hole in the wing.
But we are all speculating at this stage-that'w why I regret my initial rermark about GE in my openig post.
It's nevertheless strange that incidents involving GE engines have struck 777's of Air France,Ethihad ,Malaysian ..

ktachiya · Thu Nov 29, 2007 11:03 am

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 24):
The ramifications of a downgrade in ETOPS certification must be expensive. Are long-haul pilots ever under pressure to keep running a poorly-performing engine....perhaps damaging the engine in the process....to avoid an IFSD?

I have no idea on your exact question but I read an interview once with a CO captain when they started flying HKG-EWR on their B777-200ER. The captain replied that they monitor the engine very closely on this flight, but it could be because its a polar route (The engine could freeze). I wonder if CX pilots who fly JFK-HKG feel the same way on their A340-600?

cf105arrow · Thu Nov 29, 2007 12:40 pm

Could somebody please clarify this for me: Is a plane specifically etops equipped? This does no longer shows on AC's website but they had a mention on the fin number's page about 2 of their A319 (previously used on YYT-LHR)

AirTranTUS · Thu Nov 29, 2007 2:17 pm

Quoting Worldrider (Reply 36):
ans for what reason? do you remember the cause of that accident?

Yep, pilot error. If the OP thinks more A340's should be bought because of a maintenance error instead of manufacturing, then a few years ago more 777's should have been bought because of pilot error.

zeke · Thu Nov 29, 2007 2:26 pm

Quoting CF105Arrow (Reply 42):
Could somebody please clarify this for me: Is a plane specifically etops equipped? This does no longer shows on AC's website but they had a mention on the fin number's page about 2 of their A319 (previously used on YYT-LHR)

Not the A319, but some aircraft like the 787 require the installation of additional fire bottles if you seek to gain the higher time ETOPS approvals.

imiakhtar · Thu Nov 29, 2007 2:32 pm

Quoting Flying Belgian (Reply 37):
As far as I remember, Etihad encountered the same problems as AF with the same type of GE engines on their 777s.

The problems that EY found were following an inspection of the GE engines, not after an IFSD. Here is the tread:
Etihad Loses Etops Due GE90 HPT Failure (by Ejazz Oct 23 2006 in Tech Ops)#menu26

Quoting Beaucaire (Reply 38):
also Malaysian has IFSD's on thier 777's ..

IIRC, all of MH's 777s are RR Trent birds

Quoting Beaucaire (Reply 40):
It's nevertheless strange that incidents involving GE engines have struck 777's of Air France,Ethihad ,Malaysian ..

Boeing74741R · Thu Nov 29, 2007 2:46 pm

How many airlines this year have lost ETPS approval or had its ETOPS rights amended? AF is one of them now, and the only other airline I can think of is Flyglobespan even though their case is totally different as it applied to the entire GSM fleet.

cf105arrow · Thu Nov 29, 2007 2:47 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 44):
Not the A319, but some aircraft like the 787 require the installation of additional fire bottles if you seek to gain the higher time ETOPS approvals.

Thanks for your answer Zeke, but could you please explain "Not the A319" . I am asking that because out of the whole AC A319 fleet, only two can fly with Etops approval.

zeke · Thu Nov 29, 2007 3:33 pm

Quoting CF105Arrow (Reply 47):
Thanks for your answer Zeke, but could you please explain "Not the A319" . I am asking that because out of the whole AC A319 fleet, only two can fly with Etops approval.

That would be their choice, if you have ETOPS aircraft, all the parts are more expensive than non ETOPS aircraft (due to quality control). On a non ETOPS aircraft you could for example get the same mechanic to top up the engine oil on both sides, with an ETOPS aircraft, you need to have separate people doing each side to avoid repetition of errors.

From a flight crew point of view, from memory it requires a HF check, and making sure the cross feed works on the ground before leaving on an ETOPS flight.

The A320 family is only capable of 180 minute ETOPS, it cannot be extended by adding addition equipment as far as I am aware, and for an aircraft with a 5-6 hour range, why would you need it.

Stitch · Thu Nov 29, 2007 3:46 pm

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 24):
The ramifications of a downgrade in ETOPS certification must be expensive. Are long-haul pilots ever under pressure to keep running a poorly-performing engine....perhaps damaging the engine in the process....to avoid an IFSD?

I would think that the maintenance and performance records are scrutinized to both obtain and maintain ETOPS certification so such a tactic would not be beneficial, would it?

Quoting Milan320 (Reply 33):
No, it just couldn't be an engine issue could it?

Considering how many GE90 series engines are in revenue service today, if there was a design flaw you'd think nobody using them would have ETOPS-180 or ETOPS-207 certification, would you? Yeah sure

Quoting Zeke (Reply 34):
The 777 does not have "ETOPS operational certification", it has been "found suitable" ETOPS, but the TCDS clearly says "This finding does not constitute approval to conduct 207-minute ETOPS operations."

I'm just going with what Wiki says, so if it is wrong, I recommend you submit a clarification/correction to the article in question.

I tried to find an ICAO ETOPS document, but was unsuccessful, so I had to go with Wiki.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net