FAA to drop ETOPS ruling for twin engine jets

bits44 · Post by **bits44** » 05 Jun 2006, 21:07

http://news.airwise.com/story/view/1149510817.html

OO-TUC · Post by **OO-TUC** » 05 Jun 2006, 21:44

Thats good news to hear, and i agree with them that 2 engine are (nearly) equally safe as 4 engine planes. Im asking myself if it will make a huge difference in fly time across the atlantic ocean? Does anybody know how much shorter it will be in the future?

mmciau · Post by **mmciau** » 05 Jun 2006, 22:17

IF this proposed ruling is effected, then I'd suggest QANTAS will re-evaluate the current big "twins" especially the B777 200LR as it may gain enough latitude to better effect currently "marginal" twin routes.

Mike

Knight255 · Post by **Knight255** » 06 Jun 2006, 01:57

Im asking myself if it will make a huge difference in fly time across the atlantic ocean?

Probably not since Greenland, and Iceland are so close. Gander is there also. Pacific routes, and Polar routes will be affected the greatest. I know of a certain airline that just started flying to Shanghai and New Delhi that was given special approval to fly polar in the 777 so it seems a lot of airlines are doing it these days, and the FAA sees the success as a reason to abolish the rule.

Mudvayne · Post by **Mudvayne** » 06 Jun 2006, 02:13

OO-TUC wrote:Im asking myself if it will make a huge difference in fly time across the atlantic ocean? Does anybody know how much shorter it will be in the future?

on a Brussels - Caribbean flight it could save you around 2 hours flight time I think

chornedsnorkack · Post by **chornedsnorkack** » 06 Jun 2006, 09:41

mmciau wrote:IF this proposed ruling is effected, then I'd suggest QANTAS will re-evaluate the current big "twins" especially the B777 200LR as it may gain enough latitude to better effect currently "marginal" twin routes.

Mike

FAA is in US. Not in Australia.

David747 · Post by **David747** » 06 Jun 2006, 10:20

Twin engines are safe, but I think i agree with modifying ETOPS just yet.

mmciau · Post by **mmciau** » 06 Jun 2006, 12:12

chornedsnorkack wrote:
mmciau wrote:IF this proposed ruling is effected, then I'd suggest QANTAS will re-evaluate the current big "twins" especially the B777 200LR as it may gain enough latitude to better effect currently "marginal" twin routes.

Mike
FAA is in US. Not in Australia.

Granted, however I'd suggest CASA would look at precedents granted by overseas agencies, eg FAA

Mike

TexasGuy · Post by **TexasGuy** » 06 Jun 2006, 17:51

mmciau wrote:
chornedsnorkack wrote:
mmciau wrote:IF this proposed ruling is effected, then I'd suggest QANTAS will re-evaluate the current big "twins" especially the B777 200LR as it may gain enough latitude to better effect currently "marginal" twin routes.

Mike
FAA is in US. Not in Australia.
Granted, however I'd suggest CASA would look at precedents granted by overseas agencies, eg FAA

Mike

And they do! They all talk to each other and consult each other in order to have standardized rules across the world.

chornedsnorkack · Post by **chornedsnorkack** » 07 Jun 2006, 12:19

TexasGuy wrote:
mmciau wrote:
chornedsnorkack wrote: FAA is in US. Not in Australia.
Granted, however I'd suggest CASA would look at precedents granted by overseas agencies, eg FAA

Mike
And they do! They all talk to each other and consult each other in order to have standardized rules across the world.

But they don´t have them.

FAA allows ETOPS 207 now - only in North Pacific.
JAA does not allow ETOPS 207 at all. The maximum JAA allows is ETOPS 180.

Does CASA side with FAA or JAA, or does Australia have their own set of rules different from both FAR and JAR?

earthman · Post by **earthman** » 07 Jun 2006, 15:37

So if a plane flies from the US to Japan, which ETOPS rules apply?

teddybAIR · Post by **teddybAIR** » 07 Jun 2006, 15:48

Well, I see two possibilities:

Probably the regulations of the area you are overflying, no? Linking these regulations to the registration would make no sense as companies would register their planes abroad then.

Anybody more aknowledgeable about this?

bAIR

GE90 · Post by **GE90** » 07 Jun 2006, 17:03

ETOPs approval is in two parts.

First the product approval is granted by the certifying agency that certifies the aircraft. For example the FAA certified the 777. If ETOPs approval is granted for the product, this becomes the upper limit for its operation. For example 207 minutes.

The second part is approval of the operator (airline) to operate under ETOPS rules. This is granted by the local agency that certifies that airline to operate. For example the CAA (now EASA) approved BA. That certification is based on training, maintenance programs, etc. An airline might get 120 minutes initially, then over time that might get raised to 180, etc, but it can not exceed the product approval.

Hope this is clear.

chornedsnorkack · Post by **chornedsnorkack** » 07 Jun 2006, 18:01

GE90 wrote:ETOPs approval is in two parts.

First the product approval is granted by the certifying agency that certifies the aircraft. For example the FAA certified the 777. If ETOPs approval is granted for the product, this becomes the upper limit for its operation. For example 207 minutes.

The second part is approval of the operator (airline) to operate under ETOPS rules. This is granted by the local agency that certifies that airline to operate. For example the CAA (now EASA) approved BA. That certification is based on training, maintenance programs, etc. An airline might get 120 minutes initially, then over time that might get raised to 180, etc, but it can not exceed the product approval.

Does it mean that e. g. A330 cannot fly ETOPS 207? The aircraft being an European product and therefore certified by JAA which has no ETOPS 207, FAA would be unable to allow any airline to fly ETOPS 207 on A330?

n5528p · Post by **n5528p** » 08 Jun 2006, 12:54

chornedsnorkack wrote:
GE90 wrote:ETOPs approval is in two parts.

First the product approval is granted by the certifying agency that certifies the aircraft. For example the FAA certified the 777. If ETOPs approval is granted for the product, this becomes the upper limit for its operation. For example 207 minutes.

The second part is approval of the operator (airline) to operate under ETOPS rules. This is granted by the local agency that certifies that airline to operate. For example the CAA (now EASA) approved BA. That certification is based on training, maintenance programs, etc. An airline might get 120 minutes initially, then over time that might get raised to 180, etc, but it can not exceed the product approval.

Does it mean that e. g. A330 cannot fly ETOPS 207? The aircraft being an European product and therefore certified by JAA which has no ETOPS 207, FAA would be unable to allow any airline to fly ETOPS 207 on A330?

AFAIK, the country where the operator is from, makes the rules.

But this is policy, not science...

Regards, Bernhard

n5528p · Post by **n5528p** » 08 Jun 2006, 13:00

chornedsnorkack wrote:FAA is in US. Not in Australia.

So what?

Once the US airlines have this advantage, the others will lobby in their countries to have it as well. Furthermore, the FAA is the leading body in this matter, and many other authorities will follow.

Bernhard

chornedsnorkack · Post by **chornedsnorkack** » 08 Jun 2006, 13:06

n5528p wrote:
chornedsnorkack wrote:FAA is in US. Not in Australia.
So what?

Once the US airlines have this advantage,

Where exactly can US airlines fly under ETOPS 330? American Samoa? Doable with ETOPS 180 already.

fokker_f27 · Post by **fokker_f27** » 08 Jun 2006, 18:28

chornedsnorkack wrote:
n5528p wrote:
chornedsnorkack wrote:FAA is in US. Not in Australia.
So what?

Once the US airlines have this advantage,
Where exactly can US airlines fly under ETOPS 330? American Samoa? Doable with ETOPS 180 already.

http://gc.kls2.com/faq.html#etops-330

Aviation24.be

FAA to drop ETOPS ruling for twin engine jets

FAA to drop ETOPS ruling for twin engine jets

ETOPS

Re: ETOPS

Re: ETOPS