Ok, to start off, I'm sorry if this is a stupid question. I keep hearing people refer to "ETOPS" and I know it has something to do with the aircraft only having two engines and that is why some airlines chose (supposedly) the A340 over the 777. What is ETOPS? This is just one of those things I never found out about.

-Tim

Again, sry if this is a stupid question.

ETOPS (Extended Twin-engine OPerationS) is an acronymn for an International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) rule permitting newer twin-engined commercial air transports to fly routes that, at some points, are further than a distance of 60 minutes flying time from an emergency or diversion airport. This definition allows twin-engined airliners—like Boeing 757, 767, 777 and Airbus A300, A320 series, A330—to fly routes long distances (especially over water) that were previously off-limits to twin-engined aircraft.

I hope that helps  

jeremy

Has to do with extended operation over water with one engine out.

Try this for a detailed explanation and history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS

I just found it using google. Until then I didn't know myself.

ETOPS: Engines Turning Or Passengers Swimming.
Also works with EROPS [R = Running].

ETOPS sets out regulations for twin engined aircraft for extended flights without a suitable diversion airport. ETOPS 120 means that this twin can fly routes that should have diversion airports within 120 minutes of flight at one engine. ETOPS 180 and 207 are currently also in use. Boeing is doing 777-300ER trials for ETOPS 330. In order to fly these routes, operatos must meet the stringent regulations of these ETOPS rules.

ETOPS is to be replaced by LROPS [Long Range OPerationS], which set regulations for long range flights for ALL airliners, not just twins.

PW100

Has to do with extended operation over water with one engine out.

Not necessarily over water. Just operations where a twin-engined aircraft is flying a considerable distance away from any designated alternate airport.

ETOPS also stands for :

Engines
Turned
Off
Passengers
Swimming


 

PW100, you got to it before me  

ETOPS: Engines Turn Or Passengers Swim

[Edited 2004-05-08 23:36:47]

Has to do with extended operation over water

ETOPS, in and of itself, has nothing to do with over-water ops

Thank you so much, everyone. I am a lousy swimmer.

ETOPS 330???? Man I didn't know about this one, that's 5.5 hours to a diversion airports, not many places where that applies... I mean if you're in the middle of the atlantic, most of the time, you're 3 hours or less away from each side, so ETOPS 180 and 207 meant you could pratically choose the straight line you wanted if ATC approved it.

Does anyone know where ETOPS 330 could really come in handy???

My guess would be, over water. Or a place without land.

Has this rule ever been used before? e.g. A plane with one engine would manage to land within 60 minutes.

Thanks for all your responses! Now I finally know and can read posts without scratching my head and going, "ETOPS, huh???". LOL. Thanks again!

-Tim  

OK, we get what the acronym stands for. But "my" question is, what entity earns an ETOPS qualification? Is it an aircraft, or a certain aircraft in a certain airline fleet?

I remember reading in a recent post that TG had had trouble with ETOPS certification, and would thus keep all four-engine fleet over extensive water. Yet TG has never lost an aircraft over water. I would rather fly a TG twin over water than, say, Egyptair, who obviously has a good ETOPS rating.

This is getting very interesting...

Very long range ETOPS could be used over the Pacific, Indian Oceans, South Atlantic and overflying land areas such as the Middle East, Parts of Africa, Russia/Asia where few if any safe airports or ones that can handle some aircraft models.

The airline does not get the certificate, the airplane does, well, its manufacturer. Boy, will I hear it now.

ETOPS 330???? Man I didn't know about this one, that's 5.5 hours to a diversion airports, not many places where that applies..

ETOPS 330 has not yet been approved, but Boeing has performed all the necessary testing to obtain certification for this protocal. I believe the 773ER prototype was used for these test. It comes in handy over the south pacific and polar routes.

what about that Transat A-3something, that landed without engine power on one of the islands of the Azores...? Was it ETOPS-certified, bound to be...but how many minutes??

Eddieho:

I think one of the most famous examples of ETOPS where an aircraft had to run on one engine to the nearest airport, was the engine shutdown on a UA 777 from AKL to LAX or SFO... the 777 flew slightly more than 180 mins on 1 engine to reach her diversion airport.

Tsentsan,

You are correct. It was a UA777222ER that was on it's way to SFO(?) and ended up at HNL. When the actual engine quit it was exactly 180min from there. Now as that pilot I wouldn't really worry about getting there I would worry about the stress on the engine and the damage to the other engine. 3hrs ETOPS is not a big deal for a 777, I think Boeing did 13hrs(?).

ETOPS certification only happens once and that is when the a/c is first built. For example the 777-300ER got its ETOPS certification with the demo a/c and now that that has happened as long as Boeing agrees to build the a/c exactly the same then any 777-300ER built after is certified.

Hope that helps!

UA777222

ETOPS certification may happen only once for an aircraft type. That is different from ETOPS certification for each flight. FAR 121.161 states the regulations for ETOPS flights capped at 60 mins. Operators can get around that by complying to the FAA Advisory Circular 120-42A. Each flight needs to be ETOPS certified, through advanced aircraft maintenance, especially engines and APUs. There are very strict regulations eg. the same technicians cannot work on both engines of the twin, it must be done by two seperate techician teams to avoid multiple similar systems maintenance. All systems for ETOPS must be checked before each flight etc etc. In addition flight crew also needs to be certified.

cheers

I was wondering if they made it so that the route was ETOPS or if any route flown by an ETOPS a/c was certified.

Thanks again WindowSeat, I had been wondering about that and didn't want to post something false.


UA777222

wasn't there an A330 that was going from LAX - SYD or something like that that lost an engine and the flight crew flew it for 4 hours on one engine? Im probably way overstating it but wasn't it like the longest flight ever on one engine? maybe it was a 76 or 77? ahh i think it was on a thread here. annnyway post if you know about it.

what does MTOW means??

ETOPS is an acronym for Extended Twin OperationS and it had its origins in the mid '80s when El Al began to fly the Boeing 767 on Trans Atlantic routes. The Boeing 777 is a beneficiary of ETOPS as it is a two-engined jet, yet it can fly transoceanic routes such as New York-London or Los Angeles-Tokyo. ETOPS has been especially useful as it allows for point-to-point service between small and medium-sized cities on different continents, such as Detroit-Glasgow, routes that are too small for a 747.

Marco,

MTOW= Maximum Take-Off Weight

Saludos.

JoseMEX:

Thanks a lot,

Marcolic

ETOPS appears to be a calculated risk, especially among the 300+ minute ETOPS flights. Correct me if I'm wrong, but It seems only a matter of time before we have a jetliner ditching in the ocean.

Methinks some of you need to refresh yourself on the difference between ETOPS approval and certification  



*****************************

ETOPS appears to be a calculated risk

...um, and flying a quad with no mandatory pre-planned alternates and no mandatory fire suppression aboard, isn't?????????




It seems only a matter of time before we have a jetliner ditching in the ocean.

Perhaps, but the question therein will be: was it ETOPS related?

In all recorded total-engine-shutdowns thusfar recorded in aviation history, many were on non-twins*, and N~O~N~E have ever been ETOPS related.


*a rather disproportionate measure anyways, considering that the overwhelming majority of all jet operations (as well as TransAtlantic) are twin



[Edited 2004-05-10 20:27:50]

ETOPS

Extended range operations are those flights conducted over a route that contains a point further than "1" hour flying time at the approved one engine inoperative cruise speed (under standard conditions in still air) from an adequate airport.

You would be surprised but, the quads, percentage wise have a higher percentage of diversions & turnbacks than two engine aircraft.

Northwest 717, if you want, I can mail you something on ETOPS.

You would be surprised but, the quads, percentage wise have a higher percentage of diversions & turnbacks than two engine aircraft.

Not surprising at all... a very simple case of probability in action, nothing more.

Like Freddie mentioned, the main issue with etops is that there are significantly more stringent rules that must be followed in order for the aircraft to be certified, and remain certified for etops operations. While fire suppressant etc is one item, another interesting one is the same mechanic cannot work on both engines while the aircraft is being serviced. Thus avoiding the chance of one mechanic making the same mistake on both engines etc. The rule list is long, and extremely stringent. While the quad may have more engines, the rules, quality controls and maintenance of the tops aircraft is well beyond those of the quads

J

How is ETOPS certified/calulated, is it how far a plane can go on one engine or how far is should go on one engine? If should, then is pretty much has to be designed up to that standard. Can I assume that would be a purely subsonic standard?

How is ETOPS certified/calulated, is it how far a plane can go on one engine or how far is should go on one engine?

Etops is certified/calculated according to how far an aircraft can go on one engine, with a small safety buffer...I suppose it's therefore how far it should go...

Cheers,
QantasA332

Quantas332, I didn't expect the answer that quick.  

What if a plane misses one category, like if it ends up with a 137 minutes max on one engine assuming the other went out just after takeoff, does it automatically get the next qualifying one down, the 120?

I mean that I am wondering where the ETOPS 207 came from, that is really not a simply number, i.e. some small fraction of an hour.

207 minutes is a 15% extension of 180 minutes as 137 minutes is of 120 minutes.

Etops is certified/calculated according to how far an aircraft can go on one engine, with a small safety buffer...I suppose it's therefore how far it should go...

Not exactly true. The 773ER has proven the ability to operate 330minute ETOPS with ease, but is thusfar only certified at ETOPS138



as 137 minutes is of 120 minutes

138  

To answer the question from reply #18 regarding the Air Transat A330 landing at Lajes... yes, the A330 was ETOPS certified, I believe it would have been 180 minutes but I'm not absolutely sure. That problem, however, was not ETOPS related, it was a fuel problem. I can't remember the exact details, but somehow the aircraft developed a fuel leak from the right wing (possibly through one of the fuel-dump valves, although I'm not certain). The pilots had the crossfeed valve open, and as fuel emptied through the right wing, more fuel was pumped from the left wing to the right wing to compensate for the weight imbalance, therefore leaking fuel from both wings rather than just the right one. Had the crossfeed valve not been open, the left wing fuel would have remained, and the problem would not have been as serious. The pilots only noticed the problem when they got "Low Fuel" alerts on the ECAM display, and when they looked at the ECAM fuel display they realised what was happening. They immediately switched off the crossfeed, and, extremely luckily, just about managed to make it to the runway at Lajes. The landing was hard and fast - the crew needed to maintain speed without power, resulting in a higher rate of descent. Damage was caused to the main landing gear - I remember seeing photos in Airliner World of the bogies looking crippled but more or less intact. The A330 remained ETOPS certified, but according to the magazine, the Canadian Authorities temporarily withdrew Air Transat's ETOPS licence until the investigation was completed, meaning they had to operate ETOPS routes with Tristars until they were given their licence back.

This, however, was not an ETOPS problem - it was not engine related, and if a trijet or four-jet airliner had developed a similar leak, they would have been in the same difficulty. The revoking of the licence by the Canadian authorities was a precautionary measure.

I am posting this only from memory, as it was a couple of years ago at least... if anyone has anything to add or correct, please do so  

One of the fuel lines to one of the engines was replaced with a similar but still wrong part during maintenance. It chafed and ultimately broke, causing a fuel leak.

Does anyone know the ETOPS rating for the A300 and A310? Both types regularly flew trans-atlantic services, but never served Hawaii.

Thanks.

Jack

As no one has said this. ETOPS time rating is calculated as the time away from a suitable airfield at normal single engine cruise speed in still air.

1. FlytoEGCC, as I recall the crossfeed was opened and never closed which caused the complete fuel exhaustion. The broken fuel line was caused by a pump (either fuel or hydraulic, can't recall) being taken form a Tristar engine and put on the 330 engine for which it was not designed. Chaffing did cause the rupture. They say the FO knew about the low fuel just outside Halifax, not from a Low Fuel ECAM while crossing the Atlantic.

2. I believe the A300/310 was only ever certified for 150 minutes thus limiting it's ETOPS abilities.

Pikachu, thanks for clearing that up, I knew I'd have got something wrong somewhere! However, if the FO knew about the low fuel situation just outside Halifax, why did they then divert to Lajes, rather than turn back to Halifax?

Couple of interesting links:
http://www.aviationnow.com/content/publication/awst/20010910/transat.htm
http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/ts236/photo.shtml
http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/images/airtransat/revelations.html
http://ww2.pstripes.osd.mil/01/aug01/ed082901h.html

I remember reading an article about the testing of the 773ER that did the 6.5 hours of ETOPS somewhere in the pacific.Of course,there were no passengers aboard-it was one of the many tests the aircraft was put thru.That's almost like flying from JFK to SNN with a good tailwind on 1 engine!Heck,I was on a JFK-LHR flight back in the late 80's that was under 6 hrs total-had one strong tailwind that cut 90 min off the flight,was on TWA. Cheers, Tim

I seem to remember that when the original rules were written for the 60 min ETOPS, the goals were set such that the FAA etc. was sure that no twin would ever meet the requirements. Of course this was back in the days for piston engines and early jets. Jet engines, especially with the introduction of FADEC have become highly reliable and predictable. Of course if it wasn't for statistics you still couldn't achieve the rules. This is because no single airframe and very few programs would every achieve the necessary number of flight hours to fully prove the requirements. However, the behavior of the airframe/powerplant combinations is nice enough that simple statistics shows the idea good.

Also, ETOPS airframes are required to conform to a much higher standard of subsystem redundancy when compared to non-ETOPS airframes. This includes cargo compartment fire suppression. So all things considered you are probably safer on an ETOPS plane than a non-ETOPS plane.

That problem, however, was not ETOPS related, it was a fuel problem.
ETOPS covers all primary systems of which fuel chapter 28 is most definitely one.


The broken fuel line was caused by a pump (either fuel or hydraulic, can't recall) being taken form a Tristar engine and put on the 330 engine for which it was not designed.
Hydraulics is also a primary system covered by ETOPS. If in fact the engine driven hydraulic pump from a Tristar was used this pump was not ETOPS. The ETOPS status of the A330 would have at that point become invalid.

the Canadian Authorities temporarily withdrew Air Transat's ETOPS license until the investigation was completed.
If the above scenarios really happened then Air Transat's ETOPS license should have been withdrawn and heavy fines imposed. ETOPS does not allow for the substitution of primary system components with NON ETOPS approved parts. You can use non ETOPS parts but the plane can only be used for non ETOPS flights until the part is replaced with an ETOPS certified part.

Dl757md

@ConcordeBoy

"...um, and flying a quad with no mandatory pre-planned alternates and no mandatory fire suppression aboard, isn't?????????"

Get your facts straigth buddy! I never heard of any longhaul fligzht that isn't oprating with pre-planned alternates enroute, no matter if there are 2, 3 or 4 engines!! It might be not mandatory, but this doesn't mean nobody does it. Same applies for the fire suppression..... If you have a list of airlines that do not do plan alternates and have NO fire suppression on longhaul aircrafts, feel free to provide a list here!

Back to topic, the ETOPS rating (duration) is granted not to an aircraft but to each airline individually. An airline has to proof the reliability of their fleet to the authorities regularly. Based on those numbers the authorities will or will not accept extension of the ETOPS limit to this particular airline. That a 777 is capable for ETOPS 330 does not mean that every airline is granted this ETOPS limitation from day 1 of operating the type.

Cheers, Thomas

If something takes both engines out, that same something would most probably take all the engines out on a quad as well (fuel leak on Air Transat would have been as much of a problem on A340, or all engines failing on BA 747 ingesting volcanic ash). If an engine fails in flight due to a cause related to that engine (e.g. a fan blade giving up the ghost), the likelyhood of the other engine failing is just as minuscule as that of an engine failing in the first place. Sure, the second engine COULD fail, but I could walk along the street and a meteor COULD hit me on the head. I figure my odds are pretty good either way. As ConcordeBoy points out, there has never been an accident with an ETOPS related cause.

So it's not really a calculated risk, just a simple admission of operational and mechanical realities.

And if you're worried, just ask a pilot how many times he or she has had an engine failure in flight. Of the many I have asked, no one has ever given me an answer greater than three (most said never), and that guy was pushing sixty with over 40 years experience.

In reply to posting # 46,the Air Transat fuel leak was caused by a faulty fuel pump(not intended for the A-330 engine) installed as a substitute part when the A-330 engine had been changed 5 days previous.The fuel pump was like 2 cm different in size and rubbed against an adjoining fuel line causing the leak.The National Geographic cable TV documentary is on this month several times and goes into great detail.For some reason,the replacement engine came without a fuel pump and they substituted a similar one from another engine. The captain chose to ignore the cockpit warning lights re: fuel imbalance initially as a "computer problem". Sorry to get off the main topic here. Tim