ETOPS question...
#1
ETOPS question...
The un contained engine explosion and the tragic death on the Southwest flight today was an enormously improbable event, but it sort of made me wonder. What would have happened had this occurred on an ETOPS flight between Hawai'i and LAX or SEA?
I would assume that with a window missing and rents in the fuselage, the remaining single engine would be hard pressed to maintain much cabin pressurization. If not, I would again assume that the usual drift down scenario for maximizing range with an engine loss is now N/A, since the pax need to get down to an altitude where they won't require supplemental oxygen in 10-12 minutes.
Even so, if you were midway between Hawai'i and the US in flight time (allowing for winds), do you have reserve fuel enough to make it at - say - 12,500 MSL? Or is fuel consumption high enough at that altitude that you can't? Or at least, that you'd have to make a Hob's choice and fly at some higher altitude to make it, even knowing cabin pressurization might be above where you'd like it and more vulnerable people in the cabin, like those with COPD, might be placed at risk?
I realize most people are not going to see either an engine loss OR a rapid loss of cabin pressurization in their flying career, let alone the two as simultaneous events but I can't help but wonder how you ETOPS guys (and gals) would handle such a situation.
I would assume that with a window missing and rents in the fuselage, the remaining single engine would be hard pressed to maintain much cabin pressurization. If not, I would again assume that the usual drift down scenario for maximizing range with an engine loss is now N/A, since the pax need to get down to an altitude where they won't require supplemental oxygen in 10-12 minutes.
Even so, if you were midway between Hawai'i and the US in flight time (allowing for winds), do you have reserve fuel enough to make it at - say - 12,500 MSL? Or is fuel consumption high enough at that altitude that you can't? Or at least, that you'd have to make a Hob's choice and fly at some higher altitude to make it, even knowing cabin pressurization might be above where you'd like it and more vulnerable people in the cabin, like those with COPD, might be placed at risk?
I realize most people are not going to see either an engine loss OR a rapid loss of cabin pressurization in their flying career, let alone the two as simultaneous events but I can't help but wonder how you ETOPS guys (and gals) would handle such a situation.
#3
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2015
Posts: 1,120
I'm not sure any aircraft doing ETOPS would fare well in that situation. That's one reason why a single-blade shedding event is supposed to remain contained, as part of the original certification process.
#5
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2014
Posts: 1,681
The critical fuel scenario required by the advisory circular (perhaps codified in FAR now?) requires the most restrictive fuel contingency to be protected. It is either 1EO (1 engine operating at MCT (maximum continuous thrust) driftdown level off altitude (in my experience 16-18,000 feet for a 767-300ER) or 1EO at 10,000 feet (depressurization scenario). Icing also has to be evaluated, though I've heard people argue that the drag created by a potential "frozen fan" on the dead engine was never accounted for. You can be negative fuel at ETP due to unplanned overburn in the early part of the flight but you cannot plan to be negative fuel at ETP.
Little known factoid: Some foreign carriers that have no regulatory requirement for Dispatch routinely plan their flights with negative fuel at ETP. This is due to "corporate bean counters" dictating fuel loads. If the public only knew. Imagine losing an engine at the equal time point and running out of fuel prior to reaching the diversion airport.
Little known factoid: Some foreign carriers that have no regulatory requirement for Dispatch routinely plan their flights with negative fuel at ETP. This is due to "corporate bean counters" dictating fuel loads. If the public only knew. Imagine losing an engine at the equal time point and running out of fuel prior to reaching the diversion airport.
ETOPS doesn’t account for fires-for example. In any major fire scenario, planes have become unflyable in 30 mins or less. In that sort of situation, you are in the water.
The folks who set out to design ETOPS knew there would eventually be non-good-outcome scenarios. They should be rare, but one day, one will happen.
The hole in fuel tank, extra drag scenarios, and other such events all have “in the water” as the outcome. Same can happen on a 3 or 4 engine plans.
Life has risk
#6
ETOPS accounts for engine out plus unpressurized cruise at 10k to the divert field. No engine/pack combo could maintain cabin pressure with a window out.
ETOPS does not account for excess drag due to structural failure... that would probably not work out with typical fuel loads.
ETOPS does not account for excess drag due to structural failure... that would probably not work out with typical fuel loads.
#7
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: B-737NG preferably in first class with a glass of champagne and caviar
Posts: 5,912
Little known factoid: Some foreign carriers that have no regulatory requirement for Dispatch routinely plan their flights with negative fuel at ETP. This is due to "corporate bean counters" dictating fuel loads. If the public only knew. Imagine losing an engine at the equal time point and running out of fuel prior to reaching the diversion airport.
Last edited by captjns; 04-18-2018 at 04:36 AM.
#8
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2014
Posts: 1,681
He said they regularly launch with about enough fuel to do a missed and flame out before a second attempt.
Those guys are on individual contracts which can be cancelled at any time. What do you expect them to do?
#9
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: B-737NG preferably in first class with a glass of champagne and caviar
Posts: 5,912
I have heard exactly the same story from a guy who’s brother flies for one of the ME3
He said they regularly launch with about enough fuel to do a missed and flame out before a second attempt.
Those guys are on individual contracts which can be cancelled at any time. What do you expect them to do?
He said they regularly launch with about enough fuel to do a missed and flame out before a second attempt.
Those guys are on individual contracts which can be cancelled at any time. What do you expect them to do?
#10
There are risks to everything.
ETOPS doesn’t account for fires-for example. In any major fire scenario, planes have become unflyable in 30 mins or less. In that sort of situation, you are in the water.
The folks who set out to design ETOPS knew there would eventually be non-good-outcome scenarios. They should be rare, but one day, one will happen.
The hole in fuel tank, extra drag scenarios, and other such events all have “in the water” as the outcome. Same can happen on a 3 or 4 engine plans.
Life has risk
ETOPS doesn’t account for fires-for example. In any major fire scenario, planes have become unflyable in 30 mins or less. In that sort of situation, you are in the water.
The folks who set out to design ETOPS knew there would eventually be non-good-outcome scenarios. They should be rare, but one day, one will happen.
The hole in fuel tank, extra drag scenarios, and other such events all have “in the water” as the outcome. Same can happen on a 3 or 4 engine plans.
Life has risk
Lee
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
RVSM Certified
Flight Schools and Training
22
02-27-2009 12:04 PM