I remember reading that Air New Zealand had its B77E sub-fleet equipped with ETOPS 330 for AKL-EZE and LATAMs 789 also equipped with ETOPS 330 for the South America to Oceania crossing SCL-AKL/SYD/MEL. The Oceania to South Africa crossing is similar. Does QF have the ETOPS 330 type rating for crossing the Southern Indian Ocean? What ETOPS rating does SQ have on SIN-JNB? There are probably more diversion spots like the Maldives, Mauritius etc in the Indian Ocean versus the South Pacific with only Easter Island IPC and French Polynesia PPT.

The approval is more related to the airline, not the aircraft. Airlines are approved by regulators (CASA in terms of QF) to conduct ETOPS, not specific aircraft tails. It is that regulatory approval which limits the times and routes they can operate.

zeke wrote:

The approval is more related to the airline, not the aircraft. Airlines are approved by regulators (CASA in terms of QF) to conduct ETOPS, not specific aircraft tails. It is that regulatory approval which limits the times and routes they can operate.

Yes this is true, but different aircraft types and configurations within the same airline will have different ETDO time limits. An 'ABC Airline'' A330 might not have the same EDTO limit as say an A350 from the same airline. Each operator will apply to the regulator for each fleet (assuming all tail numbers have the same configuration) depending on EDTO required. Or no?

T54A wrote:

zeke wrote:

The approval is more related to the airline, not the aircraft. Airlines are approved by regulators (CASA in terms of QF) to conduct ETOPS, not specific aircraft tails. It is that regulatory approval which limits the times and routes they can operate.

Yes this is true, but different aircraft types and configurations within the same airline will have different ETDO time limits. An 'ABC Airline'' A330 might not have the same EDTO limit as say an A350 from the same airline. Each operator will apply to the regulator for each fleet (assuming all tail numbers have the same configuration) depending on EDTO required. Or no?

You are correct, but so is Zeke. It really depends on the regulator, but several regulators do indeed impose specific requirements on the airframe itself, hence why we have ETOPS and non-ETOPS frames of the same type with the same operator. (Several American operators for example will print ETOPS on the nose gear doors to help differentiate. Didn't help much a few years ago when An A321 I believe went to Hawaii and it was not ETOPS approved/equipped)

ETOPS/EDTO approvals are like other add on approvals to an AOC, like LVO, RNP, RVSM, EFBs etc. these really have nothing to do with individual aircraft or individual types, they are granted when the operator has demonstrated they have the necessary procedures, training, maintenance, and operational oversight in place to conduct ETOPS operations under the AOC. How an airline wants to operate different aircraft within their fleet is their prerogative, there is no requirement to have every type within the airline operated as ETDO, no requirement for every aircraft within a type to be operate EDTO. They are commercial decisions that the regulator does not control.

I believe QF have 330-minute ETOPS. Years back, they were limited to I think 180 so required the 747s for those routes, but those days are gone.

77west wrote:

T54A wrote:

zeke wrote:

The approval is more related to the airline, not the aircraft. Airlines are approved by regulators (CASA in terms of QF) to conduct ETOPS, not specific aircraft tails. It is that regulatory approval which limits the times and routes they can operate.

Yes this is true, but different aircraft types and configurations within the same airline will have different ETDO time limits. An 'ABC Airline'' A330 might not have the same EDTO limit as say an A350 from the same airline. Each operator will apply to the regulator for each fleet (assuming all tail numbers have the same configuration) depending on EDTO required. Or no?

You are correct, but so is Zeke. It really depends on the regulator, but several regulators do indeed impose specific requirements on the airframe itself, hence why we have ETOPS and non-ETOPS frames of the same type with the same operator. (Several American operators for example will print ETOPS on the nose gear doors to help differentiate. Didn't help much a few years ago when An A321 I believe went to Hawaii and it was not ETOPS approved/equipped)

Do airlines ever put a sign in the cockpit indicating whether or not an aircraft is equipped for ETOPS?

Not in the airline I operated. All the airframes of each same type were equally ETOPS/EDTO ‘rated’. Since we operated A340-300, A340-600, A330-200, A330-300 and A350-900 as a multi-fleet (pilots flew all types), we would just check the Computerised Flight Plan had the correct ETOPS (actually EDTO) values for that type. As an example, the A346 has slight different cargo hold fire suppression numbers to the A343. This would have minor effects on very long over water flight where fire suppression was the limiting factor. There are several different EDTO limits. The most limiting factor on each particular flight will determine the EDTO value for that flight.

dfwjim1 wrote:

Do airlines ever put a sign in the cockpit indicating whether or not an aircraft is equipped for ETOPS?

The aircraft technical log will indicate if there is any reduction in the capability of the aircraft.

T54A wrote:

Not in the airline I operated. All the airframes of each same type were equally ETOPS/EDTO ‘rated’. Since we operated A340-300, A340-600, A330-200, A330-300 and A350-900 as a multi-fleet (pilots flew all types), we would just check the Computerised Flight Plan had the correct ETOPS (actually EDTO) values for that type. As an example, the A346 has slight different cargo hold fire suppression numbers to the A343. This would have minor effects on very long over water flight where fire suppression was the limiting factor. There are several different EDTO limits. The most limiting factor on each particular flight will determine the EDTO value for that flight.

SAA or LH by any chance?

77west wrote:

T54A wrote:

Not in the airline I operated. All the airframes of each same type were equally ETOPS/EDTO ‘rated’. Since we operated A340-300, A340-600, A330-200, A330-300 and A350-900 as a multi-fleet (pilots flew all types), we would just check the Computerised Flight Plan had the correct ETOPS (actually EDTO) values for that type. As an example, the A346 has slight different cargo hold fire suppression numbers to the A343. This would have minor effects on very long over water flight where fire suppression was the limiting factor. There are several different EDTO limits. The most limiting factor on each particular flight will determine the EDTO value for that flight.

SAA or LH by any chance?

SAA

T54A wrote:

77west wrote:

T54A wrote:

Not in the airline I operated. All the airframes of each same type were equally ETOPS/EDTO ‘rated’. Since we operated A340-300, A340-600, A330-200, A330-300 and A350-900 as a multi-fleet (pilots flew all types), we would just check the Computerised Flight Plan had the correct ETOPS (actually EDTO) values for that type. As an example, the A346 has slight different cargo hold fire suppression numbers to the A343. This would have minor effects on very long over water flight where fire suppression was the limiting factor. There are several different EDTO limits. The most limiting factor on each particular flight will determine the EDTO value for that flight.

SAA or LH by any chance?

SAA

Thats what I was leaning towards, not many operators with that exact fleet mix.

T54A wrote:

Not in the airline I operated. All the airframes of each same type were equally ETOPS/EDTO ‘rated’. Since we operated A340-300, A340-600, A330-200, A330-300 and A350-900 as a multi-fleet (pilots flew all types), we would just check the Computerised Flight Plan had the correct ETOPS (actually EDTO) values for that type. As an example, the A346 has slight different cargo hold fire suppression numbers to the A343. This would have minor effects on very long over water flight where fire suppression was the limiting factor. There are several different EDTO limits. The most limiting factor on each particular flight will determine the EDTO value for that flight.

The actual EDTO value itself is essentially immaterial. They will use the correct figure for the aircraft when generating the flight plan, and when we flying the sector we apply the same procedures for the EDTO entry/exit points, critical points etc as annotated on the flight plan.

Qantas B789 are approved for EDTO 330 (2169NM)