Hello All:

I am curious as to what the process is with regards to installing and uninstalling ETOPS on an aircraft. Particularly a 737. Can it be done overnight or is it typically done in a check? Also aside from safety equipment, what else is involved in making an aircraft an “ETOPS” aircraft?

Can’t talk about the 737 but in the most difficult part is getting ETOPS approval as an operator. Manuals have to be amended, crews and other personal have to be trained and also some sort of operational demonstration (number of flights carried out according to ETOPS procedures) carried out. Modifying the aircraft is a smaller part. In most cases the changes relate to the fire extinguishing systems and for some (mostly older) aircraft types to the electrical system. For the A320 (as I said I don’t know much about the 737, but it may be similar) there are different versions of the cargo fire extinguishing systems. The basic version does not have a fire extinguisher bottle at all, fire extinguishing works by shutting off the air (and thereby oxygen) to the affected cargo compartment. An other coming version uses one fire extinguishing bottle that can be discharged into either (but not both) cargo compartments. The version that is required for ETOPS uses two fire extinguishing bottles that are slowly discharged over the space of several hours to keep a possible fire under control for the whole ETOPS period.

SXDFC wrote:

Hello All:

I am curious as to what the process is with regards to installing and uninstalling ETOPS on an aircraft. Particularly a 737. Can it be done overnight or is it typically done in a check? Also aside from safety equipment, what else is involved in making an aircraft an “ETOPS” aircraft?

EDTO is an approval granted to an organisation not to a specific aircraft tail. The approval requires many items in engineering related to maintenance and operations relating to planning, operating, and monitoring flights.

zeke wrote:

SXDFC wrote:

Hello All:

I am curious as to what the process is with regards to installing and uninstalling ETOPS on an aircraft. Particularly a 737. Can it be done overnight or is it typically done in a check? Also aside from safety equipment, what else is involved in making an aircraft an “ETOPS” aircraft?

EDTO is an approval granted to an organisation not to a specific aircraft tail. The approval requires many items in engineering related to maintenance and operations relating to planning, operating, and monitoring flights.

ETOPS to both organisation and fleets (I.e. a list of planes)

No, it’s an operational approval.

As mentioned above, ETOPS isn't a piece of software/hardware that can be installed/uninstalled on a particular aircraft. It's a certification for the entire airline organization including the aircraft, the flight crew, the dispatch, the maintenance...
Further details and explanations in this Wendover Productions video:
https://youtu.be/HSxSgbNQi-g

ETOPS does apply to specific tail numbers.

All the redundant equipment required for ETOPS need so be installed on a given airfarme. I don't know the list off hand but I know one for the 757 is the HMG. A lot of operators did not have it factory installed if they did not intend to operate ETOPS. A system like that takes a few days to install.

The big hurdle to jump through on the fleet side is component certification. Many of the airframe and engine components have to be maintained and overhauled with an ETOPS qualification. There may be three different IDG that are legal to install on a non ETOPS situation. They are all similar with the same base part number. Only one might be ETOPS compliant due to reliability mods that have been upgraded into it. All of those components need to be verified. Its a records chase and then some one has to verify with eyes that said s/n is where we say it is.

The final step is required for all ETOPS flights. A pre departure check is done by AMT's that are ETOPS qualified and qualified specifically for that aircraft type. With 3-4 AMT's you can usually do it in an hour for a widebody quicer for a narrowbody.

zeke wrote:

No, it’s an operational approval.

As mention above, first the airline itself have to get its operation procedures become ETOPS approved.
Then certain equipments needed to add to planes intended for ETOPS use,
Finally they can operate ETOPS flights.

So technically they can install or uninstall ETOPS to a particular plane.

There is no such thing as an EDTO installation for an aircraft, EDTO requirements depend on the regulator overseeing the operator.

Please stop posting misinformation. ETDO is an operational approval that is granted to an operator. What the operator needs to have in place to exercise that approval is contained in that document issued by the regulator.

An operator can dispatch hundreds of EDTO flights for other airlines, perform EDTO maintenance for other air rallies, may have crew with thousand’s of hours of EDTO experience, and aircraft with everything required. They cannot do anything without their particular regulator approving the operation, and often also required other regulators to grant approval under a Part 129 foreign AOC.

It does no rely on the aircraft equipment installed, more the way it is maintained and operated and the regulatory approvals.

zeke wrote:

There is no such thing as an EDTO installation for an aircraft, EDTO requirements depend on the regulator overseeing the operator.

Please stop posting misinformation. ETDO is an operational approval that is granted to an operator. What the operator needs to have in place to exercise that approval is contained in that document issued by the regulator.

An operator can dispatch hundreds of EDTO flights for other airlines, perform EDTO maintenance for other air rallies, may have crew with thousand’s of hours of EDTO experience, and aircraft with everything required. They cannot do anything without their particular regulator approving the operation, and often also required other regulators to grant approval under a Part 129 foreign AOC.

It does no rely on the aircraft equipment installed, more the way it is maintained and operated and the regulatory approvals.

One of the most common equipments for ETOPS is those related to over water safety equipments.
You could have such equipments only on a selected sub-fleet if most of your routes don’t flying far away from the land.

So I can’t agree that ETOPS requirements is only approval on the procedures.

To have an ETOPS flight,
1) The plane model must be ETOPS approved
2) the airline’s procedures are ETOPS approved
3) The plane with ETOPS required equipments
4) The plane received ETOPS required maintenance

Tune in tonight at 9et / 8 ct for Acronym Wars.

hongkongflyer wrote:

One of the most common equipments for ETOPS is those related to over water safety equipments.

EDTO has nothing to do with flying over water. You can be required to carry rafts etc when flying non EDTO. Likewise you can be in an EDTO segment over land (common over Africa).

zeke wrote:

There is no such thing as an EDTO installation for an aircraft, EDTO requirements depend on the regulator overseeing the operator.

Please stop posting misinformation. ETDO is an operational approval that is granted to an operator. What the operator needs to have in place to exercise that approval is contained in that document issued by the regulator.

An operator can dispatch hundreds of EDTO flights for other airlines, perform EDTO maintenance for other air rallies, may have crew with thousand’s of hours of EDTO experience, and aircraft with everything required. They cannot do anything without their particular regulator approving the operation, and often also required other regulators to grant approval under a Part 129 foreign AOC.

It does no rely on the aircraft equipment installed, more the way it is maintained and operated and the regulatory approvals.

Completely correct, but back in the early days of the 757/767 there was optional equipment that was required for ETOPS capability. HF radios were optional, as was the Hydraulic Motor Generator. Both were required for ETOPS. In theory, you’d have to retrofit some equipment to be ETOPS capable.

Nowadays, all non-737 Boeing models have all equipage required for ETOPS approval installed as baseline equipment.

As you pointed out, I think the OP misunderstood what ETOPS approval entails.

BoeingGuy wrote:

zeke wrote:

There is no such thing as an EDTO installation for an aircraft, EDTO requirements depend on the regulator overseeing the operator.

Please stop posting misinformation. ETDO is an operational approval that is granted to an operator. What the operator needs to have in place to exercise that approval is contained in that document issued by the regulator.

An operator can dispatch hundreds of EDTO flights for other airlines, perform EDTO maintenance for other air rallies, may have crew with thousand’s of hours of EDTO experience, and aircraft with everything required. They cannot do anything without their particular regulator approving the operation, and often also required other regulators to grant approval under a Part 129 foreign AOC.

It does no rely on the aircraft equipment installed, more the way it is maintained and operated and the regulatory approvals.

Completely correct, but back in the early days of the 757/767 there was optional equipment that was required for ETOPS capability. HF radios were optional, as was the Hydraulic Motor Generator. Both were required for ETOPS. In theory, you’d have to retrofit some equipment to be ETOPS capable.

Nowadays, all non-737 Boeing models have all equipage required for ETOPS approval installed as baseline equipment.

As you pointed out, I think the OP misunderstood what ETOPS approval entails.

Do you care to share what the 737 needs for ETOPS? Thanks!

xl0hr wrote:

Do you care to share what the 737 needs for ETOPS? Thanks!

There is no single answer.

EDTO requirements vary between regulators, the company operations manuals which includes the FCOM, MEL, CDL will outline the equipment that is required to be serviceable and maintenance tasks that need to be performed to dispatch an aircraft EDTO.

Thanks!

Guys research EDTO. The rules now apply to quads and well as twins and tri’s. For example, my last company had A330’s and A350’s that had a greater EDTO diversion times than the A340’s. This was due to fire suppression in the cargo holds.

xl0hr wrote:

BoeingGuy wrote:

zeke wrote:

There is no such thing as an EDTO installation for an aircraft, EDTO requirements depend on the regulator overseeing the operator.

Please stop posting misinformation. ETDO is an operational approval that is granted to an operator. What the operator needs to have in place to exercise that approval is contained in that document issued by the regulator.

An operator can dispatch hundreds of EDTO flights for other airlines, perform EDTO maintenance for other air rallies, may have crew with thousand’s of hours of EDTO experience, and aircraft with everything required. They cannot do anything without their particular regulator approving the operation, and often also required other regulators to grant approval under a Part 129 foreign AOC.

It does no rely on the aircraft equipment installed, more the way it is maintained and operated and the regulatory approvals.

Completely correct, but back in the early days of the 757/767 there was optional equipment that was required for ETOPS capability. HF radios were

optional, as was the Hydraulic Motor Generator. Both were required for ETOPS. In theory, you’d have to retrofit some equipment to be ETOPS capable.

Nowadays, all non-737 Boeing models have all equipage required for ETOPS approval installed as baseline equipment.

As you pointed out, I think the OP misunderstood what ETOPS approval entails.

Do you care to share what the 737 needs for ETOPS? Thanks!

Dual HF is one example. Non etops 737s can have just one.

DL777200LR wrote:

Dual HF is one example. Non etops 737s can have just one.

thanks!

As explained in other replies, ETOPS/EDTO is under the airline operations, as well as the aircraft they use.

Semantics aside, using an Non-ETOPS Approved part on an aircraft downgrades it immediately.
The ETOPS status can be returned with the installation of an ETOPS Qualified Part by an ETOPS Qualified Mechanic, Inspected and Ops and/or Leak Checks Performed. Following this an ETOPS Verification flight is performed. If successful, the ETOPS Qualified Mechanic will do the ETOPS Checklist for the aircraft to return to ETOPS service.

xl0hr wrote:

Do you care to share what the 737 needs for ETOPS? Thanks!

Off the top of my head, ETOPS ready for the 737NG and MAX would include life-raft stowage compartments (two compartments on the ceiling in the middle of the passenger cabin), dual high-frequency radios (HF), slightly higher power APU-driven generator (?), SATCOM provision, and 60 gallon potable water capacity (?).

JAGflyer wrote:

Off the top of my head, ETOPS ready for the 737NG and MAX would include life-raft stowage compartments (two compartments on the ceiling in the middle of the passenger cabin)

Lift rafts would be required when more the 100 nm or 30 min offshore, it’s not an EDTO requirement. You can be EDTO over land.

To expand a bit, in the MEL the items that are required for EDTO will have a code denoting them as such, normally with some notes. So you might have an inop piece of kit and not be permitted to do EDTO, but you can still go no a non-EDTO sector.

SXDFC wrote:

Hello All:

I am curious as to what the process is with regards to installing and uninstalling ETOPS on an aircraft. Particularly a 737. Can it be done overnight or is it typically done in a check? Also aside from safety equipment, what else is involved in making an aircraft an “ETOPS” aircraft?

Quick story...

EDTO applies to all aircraft. ETOPS twins only.

EDTO less restrictive for the operator. EDTO not as generous as ETOPS, ex. weather window duration, min FFS required.

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/med ... 135-42.pdf

A example for one airline, a ETOPS authorized 737-900ER is flying, APU will not start on the ground at the next destination. APU gets MEL'ed, Aircraft is now not ETOPS authorized. APU is found to be bad, gets replaced, APU cks good. Aircraft is still not ETOPS authorized. APU ETOPS Verification Flight must be performed. If a successful APU ETOPS Verification Flight is performed, the aircraft is now ETOPS authorized again.

CALTECH wrote:

EDTO applies to all aircraft. ETOPS twins only.

ETOPS just means extended operations these days, it has nothing to do with twins.

zeke wrote:

CALTECH wrote:

EDTO applies to all aircraft. ETOPS twins only.

ETOPS just means extended operations these days, it has nothing to do with twins.

Has everything to do with twins,

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policie ... ntID/73587

'120-42B - Extended Operations (ETOPS and Polar Operations)
Date Issued
June 13, 2008
Responsible Office
AFS-220
Description
States an acceptable means but not the only means for obtaining approval under FAR Section 121.161 for two-engine airplanes to operate over a route that contains a point farther than one hour flying time at the normal one-engine inoperative cruise speed (in still air) from an adequate airport.'

"EDTO (ICAO) and ETOPS (FAA) covers Aircraft fitted with all types of engines including diversion time greater than 180 minutes.ETOPS (EASA) covers Aircraft fitted with Twins engines including diversion time greater than 180 minutes and LROPS (EASA) covers three or four engine A/C and applies on routes with diversion time more than 180 minutes."

'ETOPS (ExTended OPerationS) or EDTO (Extended Diversion Time Operations) EDTO is an aviation acronym for Extended Diversion Time Operations from ICAO (International Civil Aviation Authority, applicable to Aircraft fitted with Twins, Tris and Quads Engines. Before 2012, ETOPS was the acronym.'

'CHAPTER 2.
200.
201.
202.
ETOPS BACKGROUND
ETOPS REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS.
a. All airplanes operated under part 135 are required to comply with § 135.364. This
regulation imposes special requirements for multi-engine airplanes to operate over a route that
contains a point farther than 180 minutes flying time at an approved one-engine inoperative
cruise speed in still air from an adequate airport outside the continental United States. Special
requirements are imposed for any airplane that operates a route, a portion of which enters these
areas of operation. It is significant to note that this rule applies equally to airplanes operating
over oceanic areas or over land.
b. To conduct ETOPS, the specified airplane-engine combination must be certificated to
the airworthiness standards of transport-category airplanes and be approved for ETOPS.
However, appendix G to part 135 allows those airplanes manufactured prior to February 16,
2015, to be grandfathered from the ETOPS type certification requirements. In addition, the
certificate holder must be approved for ETOPS under part 135. As with all other operations, a
certificate holder requesting any route approval must show that it is able to satisfactorily conduct
operations between each required airport, as defined for that route or route segment and any
required en route alternate airport.
EXTENDED OPERATIONS (ETOPS). Since 1985, the acronym, ETOPS, has been
defined as “extended twin operations” and has been limited to part 121 airplanes with only two
engines. Current regulations have extended these applications to airplanes operating in both
parts 121 and 135, and the acronym has now been redefined to mean “extended operations.” This
is to acknowledge the similarity of certain long-range operations of all airplanes operating today
and the common issues that impact such operations. Even though for continuity with current
two-engine operations the existing acronym ETOPS is retained, the ETOPS acronym has been
re-defined. The concept has been expanded to include all passenger carrying airplane operations
in part 135 planned where a proposed flight plan includes any point that is greater than 180
minutes from an adequate airport (at an approved one-engine inoperative cruise speed under
standard conditions in still air). '

CALTECH wrote:

Has everything to do with twins

Nope, extended operations applies to all engine configurations.

That is exactly what the FAA says

"EDTO (ICAO) and ETOPS (FAA) covers Aircraft fitted with all types of engines including diversion time greater than 180 minutes.ETOPS (EASA) covers Aircraft fitted with Twins engines including diversion time greater than 180 minutes and LROPS (EASA) covers three or four engine A/C and applies on routes with diversion time more than 180 minutes."

As we are getting less and less quads EDTO and ETOPS are pretty much merging together into one thing.



As mentioned by CALTECH, ETOPS is not only the aircraft being ETOPS-ed, it's the entire system: From the pilots able to perform ETOPS flight, the flight route is ETOPS planned, the aircraft is ETOPS approved and all maintenence are peformed are ETOPS procedures. Any part of the chain broken and the aircraft will be downgraded and will require at least a verification flight before it can regain the status. So it's not something you can just slap on overnight to make an aircraft able to perform ETOPS flight.

That said, a lot of airlines I know (with exceptions of some cases) just have most aircraft ETOPS approved so equipment change is one less thing to worry about - and regarding maintenence having one standard is much less likely for human error, often outweights the extra cost required.

Please correct me if I have got anything wrong.

celestar345 wrote:

Any part of the chain broken and the aircraft will be downgraded and will require at least a verification flight before it can regain the status. So it's not something you can just slap on overnight to make an aircraft able to perform ETOPS flight.

Most defects that downgrade an aircraft EDTO do not require a specific EDTO verification flight. And the verification flight can be a normal non EDTO sector, you can even depart on a flight that is planned with an EDTO sector, perform a test like an APU start in the first 60 min, and then continue.

It also perfectly legal to depart on an EDTO flight on aircraft like the A330/A350 without an APU, it is not an EDTO requirement for those aircraft.

From a ICAO draft manual found after some Googling:

These new EDTO provisions are based on best practices and lessons learned from extended range operations by twin‐engine aeroplanes (ETOPS) to ensure that all operators and new entrants operate at the same level of safety in order to maintain the current track record of long‐range operations.
In short, the new EDTO standards:
 Allow longer EDTO operations for twins, based on propulsion reliability and overall operational safety of current ETOPS Twins. The related criteria have been evolved from the ETOPS standards previously existing in ICAO Annex 6.
 Introduce similar precaution to EDTO operations of aeroplanes with more than 2 engines, through few additional operational requirements (consideration of Time Limited System / policy for selection and monitoring of en‐route alternates). There are no additional maintenance requirements for EDTO operations of aeroplanes with more than 2 engines, nor any additional certification requirements. It means that for EDTO with more than 2 engines, neither the basic Type Certification nor the maintenance program need to be reviewed as both remain valid for EDTO operations.

xl0hr wrote:

Do you care to share what the 737 needs for ETOPS? Thanks!

Air conditioning / pressurisation control
Autoflight / Autopilot system
Communication - HF/VHF/Satcom availibility
Electrical generation
Fire detection / Smoke detection / Fire extinguishers
Fuel Systems
Anti-Icing system
Oxygen system
Pneumatic System
APU
Engine control system

Not what 'are needed' but more like what could affect the ETOPS status if specific parts of these system are to be inoperative.

zeke wrote:

celestar345 wrote:

Any part of the chain broken and the aircraft will be downgraded and will require at least a verification flight before it can regain the status. So it's not something you can just slap on overnight to make an aircraft able to perform ETOPS flight.

Most defects that downgrade an aircraft EDTO do not require a specific EDTO verification flight. And the verification flight can be a normal non EDTO sector, you can even depart on a flight that is planned with an EDTO sector, perform a test like an APU start in the first 60 min, and then continue.

It also perfectly legal to depart on an EDTO flight on aircraft like the A330/A350 without an APU, it is not an EDTO requirement for those aircraft.

Aah yes completely forgot about this trick... just released an ETOPS verification flight a few days ago!

Guess what can be done and what cannot depends on the airline, and the regulating body.

celestar345 wrote:

That said, a lot of airlines I know (with exceptions of some cases) just have most aircraft ETOPS approved so equipment change is one less thing to worry about - and regarding maintenence having one standard is much less likely for human error, often outweights the extra cost required.

Regarding the maintenance perspective, I've heard that some airlines also choose to install ETOPS-certified parts on non-ETOPS aircraft so as to simplify maintenance procedures. IIRC Cathay Dragon, a subsidiary airline of Cathay Pacific, has non-ETOPS A330 installed ETOPS components as Cathay's A330 are ETOPS certified. It'd be easier to keep ETOPS components and maintenance standards only (no non-ETOPS types) meanwhile no need to certify ETOPS on all aircraft. It would be too costly to certify all aircraft but the aircraft may hardly fly ETOPS routes.

Dennispnut wrote:

Regarding the maintenance perspective, I've heard that some airlines also choose to install ETOPS-certified parts on non-ETOPS aircraft so as to simplify maintenance procedures.

Absolutely. We operate both B767 (ETOPS) and B757 (non-ETOPS). A lot of common components. We maintain quite a few of those components at the ETOPS level, so we don't have to stock 2 part numbers.

Dennispnut wrote:

Regarding the maintenance perspective, I've heard that some airlines also choose to install ETOPS-certified parts on non-ETOPS aircraft so as to simplify maintenance procedures. IIRC Cathay Dragon, a subsidiary airline of Cathay Pacific, has non-ETOPS A330 installed ETOPS components as Cathay's A330 are ETOPS certified. It'd be easier to keep ETOPS components and maintenance standards only (no non-ETOPS types) meanwhile no need to certify ETOPS on all aircraft. It would be too costly to certify all aircraft but the aircraft may hardly fly ETOPS routes.

I am not aware of “EDTO certified parts”.

Many airlines employ EDTO practices on non-EDTO aircraft as the primary aim of EDTO maintenance practices is to improve reliability which is good for business. To retain EDTO the airline has to perform a certain threshold of EDTO sectors, KA being a majority short haul airline just didn’t do enough sectors that would qualify.

zeke wrote:

I am not aware of “EDTO certified parts

Our IPC clearly delineates between a part that is ETOPS approved vs. the same base part number that is not ETOPS approved.

The non-ETOPS approved part can be used, so long as effectivity is met, but the aircraft would be restricted from ETOPS operation until an ETOPS approved part is installed.

We don’t have many non-ETOPS parts left in our system.

fr8mech wrote:

Our IPC clearly delineates between a part that is ETOPS approved vs. the same base part number that is not ETOPS approved.

Approved and certified are very different meanings, what sort of parts ?

zeke wrote:

Dennispnut wrote:

Regarding the maintenance perspective, I've heard that some airlines also choose to install ETOPS-certified parts on non-ETOPS aircraft so as to simplify maintenance procedures. IIRC Cathay Dragon, a subsidiary airline of Cathay Pacific, has non-ETOPS A330 installed ETOPS components as Cathay's A330 are ETOPS certified. It'd be easier to keep ETOPS components and maintenance standards only (no non-ETOPS types) meanwhile no need to certify ETOPS on all aircraft. It would be too costly to certify all aircraft but the aircraft may hardly fly ETOPS routes.

I am not aware of “EDTO certified parts”.

Many airlines employ EDTO practices on non-EDTO aircraft as the primary aim of EDTO maintenance practices is to improve reliability which is good for business. To retain EDTO the airline has to perform a certain threshold of EDTO sectors, KA being a majority short haul airline just didn’t do enough sectors that would qualify.

They shared maintenance and parts with CX, which have enough EDTO sectors to qualify to treat wholE 330 as an EDTO approved planes. That’s why I said ETOPS has requirements on both airline and the planes.

hongkongflyer wrote:

They shared maintenance and parts with CX, which have enough EDTO sectors to qualify to treat wholE 330 as an EDTO approved planes. That’s why I said ETOPS has requirements on both airline and the planes.

This is false, they were two different AOCs. EDTO is granted to the AOC holder, not to the airframe. When EDTO approved A330s went from CX to KA, they lost their CX EDTO approval as they were operated under a different AOC. The CX A321s are not EDTO as they cannot do enough EDTO sectors.

They didnt share a lot of things, the two airlines did not share ground handling and maintenance organizations at HKG, nor did they even have simple things like engine oil in common. You are posting about things you have no direct knowledge of which are not true.

zeke wrote:

Approved and certified are very different meanings, what sort of parts ?

I’m not close to an IPC right now, but one that comes to mind is the APU, and it’s sub-assemblies and components. It is an ETOPS certified assembly, and it is approved, for installation on both our B757 & B767 aircraft. I seem to recall there’s a drain mast conversion or something when going from one installation to another.

Everything about our APU’s are maintained for installation on an ETOPS aircraft, and the IPC reflects that.

I suspect a bunch of our ATA 21 parts are maintained the same way.

fr8mech wrote:

It is an ETOPS certified assembly, and it is approved, for installation on both our B757 & B767 aircraft.

There is no “ETOPS certified assembly”, airframes and components are not ETOPS certified. The airframe will have type approval for ETOPS which means it has a configuration with the necessary redundancy for key systems like electrical, hydraulics, fire suppression, and communications. I suspect the APU is required on the 767 because it lacks electrical generator redundancy requirements without it, this needs to be able to start the APU in flight. Aircraft like the 747 have generator redundancy through the power plant configuration, they cannot start the APU in flight even if they wanted to. The A330 does not need the APU to dispatch ETOPS as it has the necessary electrical redundancy by having two generators per engine.

zeke wrote:

There is no “ETOPS certified assembly”, airframes and components are not ETOPS certified. The airframe will have type approval for ETOPS which means it has a configuration with the necessary redundancy for key systems like electrical, hydraulics, fire suppression, and communications. I suspect the APU is required on the 767 because it lacks electrical generator redundancy requirements without it, this needs to be able to start the APU in flight. Aircraft like the 747 have generator redundancy through the power plant configuration, they cannot start the APU in flight even if they wanted to. The A330 does not need the APU to dispatch ETOPS as it has the necessary electrical redundancy by having two generators per engine.

From memory, at my operator (ETOPS 180) if we dispatch with an Inop APU, we are limited to ETOPS 120. If we install any component on that APU that is not ETOPS approved, per our IPC, we restrict the aircraft from ETOPS operation.

So, the APU is required for ETOPS dispatch and components on that APU affect the ETOPS status of the aircraft. Different aircraft, different operators, different rules.

zeke wrote:

They didnt share a lot of things, the two airlines did not share ground handling and maintenance organizations at HKG, nor did they even have simple things like engine oil in common. You are posting about things you have no direct knowledge of which are not true.

Well unfortunately for some work now they do share the maintenence organisation, for the lease returns at least. No easy work though....

zeke wrote:

There is no “ETOPS certified assembly”, airframes and components are not ETOPS certified.

Maybe they do on the 757/767, these (especially the 767) have so much variations and combinations I won't be surprised if some part are not ETOPS certified. We regularly see overhauled parts dates back as early as 1982.....

zeke wrote:

The A330 does not need the APU to dispatch ETOPS as it has the necessary electrical redundancy by having two generators per engine.

Do you mean the A350? Never heard A330 have two generators per engine....

fr8mech wrote:

Different aircraft, different operators, different rules.

Don't forget different authorities...

Even for the same aircraft under different airlines we have different rules and procedures regarding ETOPS

celestar345 wrote:

Well unfortunately for some work now they do share the maintenence organisation, for the lease returns at least. No easy work though....

KA does not exist, https://www.cad.gov.hk/english/airoperator.html

Lease returns for the ex-KA aircraft back to the lessors would now be done as private operations, they are not under any AOC. To put a KA aircraft onto the CX AOC they would need similar process to the lease return maintenance package. CX engineering would manage and pay the contractors performing the work.

celestar345 wrote:

Maybe they do on the 757/767

No, ETOPS is a FAR 121.161 approval not a certification.

“Airplane. The specified airplane-engine combination listed in the certificate holder's application must have been certificated to the airworthiness standards of transport category airplanes and must be approved for ETOPS. Guidance for airplane ETOPS type design can be found in AC 25.1535-1 and § 121.162.”

Explaining that sentence, “certificate holder's application” the Part 121/129 etc certificate, the AOC, the “certificated to the airworthiness standards of transport category“ thats FAR 25, the configuration is “approved for ETOPS”, not certified for ETOPS. The approval is for FAR 121.161, aircraft or parts are not certified for FAR 121.161.

celestar345 wrote:

Do you mean the A350?

Correct two gens on the A350, the A330 also does not need the APU for EDTO dispatch where the A320 does.

zeke wrote:

CALTECH wrote:

EDTO applies to all aircraft. ETOPS twins only.

ETOPS just means extended operations these days, it has nothing to do with twins.

zeke wrote:

CALTECH wrote:

Has everything to do with twins

Nope, extended operations applies to all engine configurations.

Thanks for proving the point. ETOPS has everything to do with twins.

CALTECH wrote:

Thanks for proving the point. ETOPS has everything to do with twins.

Nope, the T in ETOPS does not mean twins, it used to some time ago, the rules were changed. ETOPS now means “extended operations”, it is no longer stands for “extended twin engine operations”.

Under the new ETOPS rules a MD-11 and 747 have to comply with their ETOPS requirements.

zeke wrote:

KA does not exist, https://www.cad.gov.hk/english/airoperator.html

Lease returns for the ex-KA aircraft back to the lessors would now be done as private operations, they are not under any AOC. To put a KA aircraft onto the CX AOC they would need similar process to the lease return maintenance package. CX engineering would manage and pay the contractors performing the work.

That's where the struggle begins - CX engineering is paying and providing the parts, while the lessor is picking up all the tiniest defect and demand rectification. Installing five 'serviceable' LRU and fails the installation test straightaway is beyond annoying, and the list goes on....

(to be fair that's pretty normal for lease return - a few months ago released a lease return flight, spent 2 hours preflight performing MEL actions...)

zeke wrote:

fr8mech wrote:

It is an ETOPS certified assembly, and it is approved, for installation on both our B757 & B767 aircraft.

There is no “ETOPS certified assembly”, airframes and components are not ETOPS certified. The airframe will have type approval for ETOPS which means it has a configuration with the necessary redundancy for key systems like electrical, hydraulics, fire suppression, and communications. I suspect the APU is required on the 767 because it lacks electrical generator redundancy requirements without it, this needs to be able to start the APU in flight. Aircraft like the 747 have generator redundancy through the power plant configuration, they cannot start the APU in flight even if they wanted to. The A330 does not need the APU to dispatch ETOPS as it has the necessary electrical redundancy by having two generators per engine.

I am pretty sure the 767 can still perform an ETOPS flight with apu inop as long as the IDG’d are functional, the etops length gets reduced though.

bourbon wrote:

zeke wrote:

fr8mech wrote:

It is an ETOPS certified assembly, and it is approved, for installation on both our B757 & B767 aircraft.

There is no “ETOPS certified assembly”, airframes and components are not ETOPS certified. The airframe will have type approval for ETOPS which means it has a configuration with the necessary redundancy for key systems like electrical, hydraulics, fire suppression, and communications. I suspect the APU is required on the 767 because it lacks electrical generator redundancy requirements without it, this needs to be able to start the APU in flight. Aircraft like the 747 have generator redundancy through the power plant configuration, they cannot start the APU in flight even if they wanted to. The A330 does not need the APU to dispatch ETOPS as it has the necessary electrical redundancy by having two generators per engine.

I am pretty sure the 767 can still perform an ETOPS flight with apu inop as long as the IDG’d are functional, the etops length gets reduced though.

For my airline an inop APU on a 767, ETOPS is reduced to 120min and but cannot be departing from the US (that part is most likely company specific)

zeke wrote:

CALTECH wrote:

Thanks for proving the point. ETOPS has everything to do with twins.

Nope, the T in ETOPS does not mean twins, it used to some time ago, the rules were changed. ETOPS now means “extended operations”, it is no longer stands for “extended twin engine operations”.

Under the new ETOPS rules a MD-11 and 747 have to comply with their ETOPS requirements.

Maybe in your part of the world for now, but here, ETOPS has everything to do with twins, as your original incorrect statement stated.

Hmmm, ETOPS on 737 Twin. Hmmmm, don't see any EDTO...


More ETOPS on 757 Twin


ETOPS on Widebody Twin


ETOPS on Big Widebody Twin