Etops changes.
- Thread starter planejane
- Start date
Planejane,
Before you stir the pot you really should at the very least know what engine type you are speaking about. You don't even know what powers our A330 fleet as indicated in your exchange with 700. And just how exactly does that make you a credible authority????
Before you stir the pot you really should at the very least know what engine type you are speaking about. You don't even know what powers our A330 fleet as indicated in your exchange with 700. And just how exactly does that make you a credible authority????
You need to re-read my original post. No where did I talk about an engine type. And when another poster responded Pratt, I know the 767 is a CF-6. I never said I was an authority. I was just stating that we lost our 180 due to mechanical problems. And as far as SJU is concerned that is where the mechanical problem occurred enroute. I guess the FAA doesn't concern themselves with destination. It's an ETOPS aircraft where ever it may fly.
I'm curious whether anyone has any information on the specific incidents that prompted the 180 to 120 change and whether someone has any idea what the operational impact of this is likely to be -- especially this time of year when Gander and Keflavik tend to have pretty rotten weather that puts them below minimums as ETOPS alternates. Am I correct in believing that this should pose a possible dispatch issue only in cases of high headwinds or below minima alternates?
pit_needs_help
Advanced
- Joined
- May 29, 2003
- Messages
- 150
- Reaction score
- 2
Oh yeah it will be a problem. We will probably cancel a few and burn a lot of fuel if we route far south to make the alternates in Santa Maria controlled space or way north over Greenland and Iceland. Hopefully this is a rolling timeframe and we lose the three shutdowns in June 04.
Phantom Fixer
Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2003
- Messages
- 577
- Reaction score
- 0
700UW is correct.
The B767-200ER is powered by the General Electric (GE) CF6
The A330-300 is powered by the Pratt and Whitney PW4168
Both are Power by the Hour outsource/vendor repaired by the present contract.
The B767-200ER is powered by the General Electric (GE) CF6
The A330-300 is powered by the Pratt and Whitney PW4168
Both are Power by the Hour outsource/vendor repaired by the present contract.
The bottom line is, it is not the fault of the vendor we use to overhaul our engines that this happened. In no way is it the fault of our mechanics and contrary to the views of some posters on here, it is not the "too many managers" fault either.
We had two airplanes that caused us grief a couple of months ago and almost put us where we are now. Thanks to our mechanic's skills we were able to find the faults and fix them and convince the FAA of what happened. This last event was too close for comfort so the FAA did what alot of people on these boards are always calling for, they did their job.
Now we have to prove our reliability again, which with the same vigilance and some luck on these old 67's we can do.
It is not about fault. It's just the way things go. We can pull through this one.
We had two airplanes that caused us grief a couple of months ago and almost put us where we are now. Thanks to our mechanic's skills we were able to find the faults and fix them and convince the FAA of what happened. This last event was too close for comfort so the FAA did what alot of people on these boards are always calling for, they did their job.
Now we have to prove our reliability again, which with the same vigilance and some luck on these old 67's we can do.
It is not about fault. It's just the way things go. We can pull through this one.
planejane said:
P.JANE ; ETOPS IS DESINGNED OR THE AIRCRAFT IS CONFIGURED SO IT WILL FLY WITH A MECHANICAL FAILURE,ITS MOSTLY ADDRESSED TO ENGINES,APU AND OTHER A/C SYSTEMS AND WITHIN THIS; ONLY CERTAIN COMPONENTS NEED TO BE ETOPS.
THE A/C GETS DOWNGRADED WHEN A SYSTEM OR COMPONENT FAILS (THIS HAPPENS OFTEN)SO WE WENT FROM 180 TO 160 OR 120 BIG DEAL; NEXT STOP IN PHILY MAINT WILL TAKE CARE OF IT. BUT; I DONT BELIVE THE FAA WILL REVOKE AN ETOPS CERTIFICATION BECAUSE OF A SHUTDOWN IN FLIGHT.
ITS THE FULL INTENT OF ETOPS TO HANDLE THIS EMERGENCIES.
ASK THE PILOTS . THEY MAY KNOW MORE DETAILS.
WHERE DID YOU GET THIS INFORMATION?
HAPPY HOLIDAYS.
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2003
- Messages
- 16,512
- Reaction score
- 5,865
There's a difference between an ETOPS aircraft having all the equipment necessary for ETOPS operation working (that's what amt4u appears to be talking about) and an airline having the processes, precedures, and reliability required to operate under the various ETOPS rules. Joe Blow Airlines can buy an ETOPS capable aircraft but not carry out ETOPS operations until they demonstrate that they can meet the reliability and operational criteria.
Part of the criteria (both for the engine/airframe combination and the airline) is engine reliability. If I recall, inflight shutdown rate has to be at or below a few per billion flight hours, but that's coming from seeing the figures a decade or so ago.
In this case, it appears that the FAA has concerns about our A330 engine reliability and reduced the 180 minute limit to 120 minutes as a precaution. Hopefully there will be some pretty simple cause for the problems that is easily solved.
Jim
ps - that at least one of the incidents happened on a non-ETOPS flight (SJU) is irrevalent. Anything that puts the reliability in question affects the ETOPS approval (or limits) for the airframe/engine/airline combination.
Part of the criteria (both for the engine/airframe combination and the airline) is engine reliability. If I recall, inflight shutdown rate has to be at or below a few per billion flight hours, but that's coming from seeing the figures a decade or so ago.
In this case, it appears that the FAA has concerns about our A330 engine reliability and reduced the 180 minute limit to 120 minutes as a precaution. Hopefully there will be some pretty simple cause for the problems that is easily solved.
Jim
ps - that at least one of the incidents happened on a non-ETOPS flight (SJU) is irrevalent. Anything that puts the reliability in question affects the ETOPS approval (or limits) for the airframe/engine/airline combination.
