ETOPS 120 planning question

[chkl 34]

I planned this flight in version 1.15 but a small portion of the flight is outside ETOPS 120 coverage

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/AFR6731

I can't find suitable airports to cover the entire route over the Atlantic. Am I doing something wrong?

PETTY PECOK ASP YXI YQB MIILS N153D NICSO NATX 5100N 02000W NATX DINIM NATX ELSOX GAPLI UM25 LUKIP

NATX: NICSO 48/50 49/40 50/30 51/20 DINIM ELSOX

[srcooke 422]

Give CYQX-LPLA-EIKY a try.

[dougsnow 50]

Or try 138

[skysurfer 6]

I ran numbers for 777 and it worked. I skipped SID/STAR, used just oceanic portion. It was pretty tight and worked only with ETOPS CYYT and EINN. If wx for those two is not good you may wont to try to go with 138 as suggested above.

ORD..PETTY..PECOK..ASP..YXI..YQB..MIILS.N153D.NICSO..48N050W..49N040W..50N030W..51N020W..DINIM..ELSOX..GAPLI.UM25.LUKIP..CDG

ETOPS 120MIN RULE

C-EEP N48 54.1 W041 35.2 TIME 04.06 FUEL 0613 FRMG 0560

C-EXP N50 57.2 W020 47.7 TIME 05.45 FUEL 0821 FRMG 0352

ETOPS ENTRY AIRPORT CYYT

ETOPS EXIT AIRPORT EINN

[olmo 5]

Although adding also Lajes (LPLA), like Stephen suggested, or moving to ETOPS 138 will do, please make sure to check also your ETOPS 120 Maximum Diversion Distance (MDD).

By using 860NM MDD for example the route will be inside the 120' scenario but close to one of the edges.

[chkl 34]

Thanks I will add LPLA. Why does LPLA not show up as a suitable airport in the list when I am planning? I let the program configure the airplane by default using the PMDG 777X profile. It only lets me do ETOPS 120 not 138

[dougsnow 50]

Well you can add the additional radii needed. Just click duplicate and change the radii to 180, 207, 240, 330, or whatever

[mjansen 7]

Is any operator in posession of an ETOPS 120/180 rating entitled to an extention to 138/207 respectively? And is the extention decided on per flight or will an airline always use ETOPS 138 on any route/flight once the extention has been granted?

[dougsnow 50]

As long as the airplane is capable, I file 180 all the time unless an MEL prevents. We can do 207 in the North Pacific only. No US carriers hold 240 and beyond (I heard UA is working a 240 application).

[mjansen 7]

What about 138? Would you use 138 all the time on North Atlantic routes, "just because you can", or is it really meant to be used only in cases where 120 does not suffice?

[dougsnow 50]

We never use 138 unless the aircraft is not 180 capable due to an MEL. Some airlines have a restrictive policy (if 120 covers the route, you're done). I see that as unnecessarily over-restrictive. We dispatch all North Atlantic flights under 180 unless restricted by MEL.

[skysurfer 6]

Is any operator in posession of an ETOPS 120/180 rating entitled to an extention to 138/207 respectively? And is the extention decided on per flight or will an airline always use ETOPS 138 on any route/flight once the extention has been granted?

In our airline we try to go on Non ETOPS solution if at all possible. Those rules when you'd use 180 mins as standard practice and 120 mins if aircraft has limitations are in the past! It is considered now (per airline policy, I am not saying for the entire aviation industry!) that going on non ETOPS route is safer than if flight is dispatched on ETOPS route. If an engine fails or a/c is depressurized or both it is safer and faster to land at an airport withing 60 mins other than you will have to press on for 180 mins on one engine or depressurized till you reach your EOPTS alternate and land. We had a situation when engine filed on one of our flight and crew continued to ETOPS alternate. But they never made it to ETOPS airport bc many other systems kept failing before then even flew half of the distance to ETOPS alternate. They landed at another airport on their way in about 45 mins or so. So ETOPS solution was basically useless.

If route cannot be built entire withing 60 mins circles then we expand to 120 ETOPS, if no luck, going to 138 and than 180. One of the gotcha for dispatches that they have to babysit all those 60 mins adequate airports if flight is on Non ETOPS solution. It is easier just name 2 or 3, may be 4 ETOPS airports and monitor only those other than you will have to monitor 10 or more adequate airports.

[LIDO 12]

What rules are you operating under? Because that doesn't sound at all right!?

[dougsnow 50]

Actually it does sound correct - its all depending on what your FAA inspector (and the carrier wants) and writes into their manuals (assuming FAA).

Thankfully at least at my carrier, we dont do it that way...

[chkl 34]

This is great information thanks all. My question though is why does LPLA not show up in the "adequate airports" list?

[skysurfer 6]

What rules are you operating under? Because that doesn't sound at all right!?

121. It does sound right. It is just a different way of thinking. The thing is why do you need ETOPS solution if you can go on NON - ETOPS? ETOPS adds extra work and coordination and stuff like that. It is one of new things we are implementing. I know we are not the only one.

Thx

[mjansen 7]

The thing is why do you need ETOPS solution if you can go on NON - ETOPS?

For financial reasons? A non-ETOPS route over the Atlantic should usually be longer than the most optimized ETOPS route since you have to stay within 60 minutes of suitable airports. I'm guessing that in these days, every penny that can be saved is important.

Mark

[skysurfer 6]

For financial reasons? A non-ETOPS route over the Atlantic should usually be longer than the most optimized ETOPS route since you have to stay within 60 minutes of suitable airports. I'm guessing that in these days, every penny that can be saved is important.

Mark

When most efficient and safe route it selected then you begin working on ETOPS. If planned route cannot be covered withing 60 mins airport then try to go on 120 ETOPS, if still no luck, go to 138...180 etc. We do not change route in order to be within 60 mins, we change EROPS solution for that route. It makes sense if flight is crossing Atlantic or Pacific, flight will be on ETOPS most of the time, but some long route like from China to US could be mostly overland or close enough and non ETOPS really needed bc there may be plenty adequate 60 mins airports along the way. So ETOPS is not needed, Like I said it depends on airline. If you want to be on 180 ETOPS all the time so please do. Your company will tell you what to do

[LIDO 12]

I assume your company has thought of a "rescue" plan for diverting to an airport on some of those Far East routes?

It is a requirement under EU-OPS for these things to be considered. Also, from a performance point of view to carry the data for all of those airports and keep it upto date, have them categorized and flight crews familiar with them is a massive undertaking.

Short of a "mayday" situation far better to divert to somewhere bigger, where solutions are already in place for things like engineering, fuel etc.. Even something as seemingly insignificant as do they have the correct towbar for your aircraft type.

Most diversions will be the result of a medical emergency, this will be carefully discussed with MedLink and IOCC, to find an airport that has good medical facilities and is operationally suitable to use.

[chkl 34]

More help please.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/SOO96

I don't get a correct list of suitable diversion airports in PFPX when trying to plan this flight with ETOPS 120.

Is this a bug with PFPX?

[srcooke 422]

I doubt you could achieve it on 120, Doug pointed out they can use 207 in the North Pacific.

But yes there does appear to be a bug in PFPX assigning adequate airports, it's leaving large holes in the coverage.