Talk:ETOPS

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

File:Etops north pacific 1700km.png

Letraindunord (talk) 03:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help requested on map

This user finds the map confusing. The text says, "... if an aircraft is certified for 180 minutes, it is permitted to fly any route not more than 180 minutes single-engine flying time to the nearest suitable airport." Shouldn't that be the dashed blue line, as all parts of that line are within distance R of a suitable airport? Similarly, shouldn't the portion of the green line marked outside the circles, marked with the bracket, be the Non-ETOPS portion of a flight? Thanks. 184.23.11.185 (talk) 22:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC) Anon User[reply]

I agree. It seems to me that either the map is wrong, or the article doesn't properly explain what an "ETOPS flight path" is. 208.91.121.202 (talk) 15:25, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Map legend seems wrong : green flight line and dashed blue line are inversed

1)radius must be less than 180mile/180mins-of-flight-apart else the plane doesn't make it to the airport for emergency land ops188.25.57.84 (talk) 01:26, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Picture is good enough but caption is wrong. Green line is not "ETOPS flight path" but rather something like "Shortest flight path achieved by ETOPS" (ideal route) Apetrov09703 (talk) 17:43, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Range

How did you calcuate the 2 hours' range? If the air speed is 850 km/h, the airplane will cover 1700 km in two hours. This will make a Hong Kong -> Los Angeles flight pretty safe that you can land in Taipei. Tokyo, Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, Anchorage, Vancouver and Los Angeles (these are just a few selected major airports). Or you have to slow down the airplane because flying one one engine will be slow. But how slow? -- Toytoy 15:41, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Okay, the ETOPS diversion flights are certified like this, during an inflight shut down, the airplane must descend to approved heights, maximum thrust will be used and the fuel consumption is higher during such flights (due to carrying the dead engine and extra drag needed to keep the plane straight). The tables in the cockpit's airplane flight manual will give you the figures. If the air is still, it's no problem. However strong headwinds will lower the ground speed, reducing the distance you can cover within the given diversion time. Northern Pacific has particulary not so good weather most of the year. Also, if the weather permits opening of the diversion airports. If airports are closed (especially the Russian ones), the pilot is left with a wing and a prayer. ETOPS-180 takes care of that.-- Fikri 05:07, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

ETOPS/LROPS

I reverted the article title because, though LROPS is still proposed, it is still very much intertwined with ETOPS. Their descriptions are very similar, and the fate of one relies on the other. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 05:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a further restriction in the ETOPS rules which state that the fuel must be the greater of the single engine burn to the ETOPS alternate or the 2 engine burn at 10,000 feet. This altitude is the maximum altitude the aircraft can operate in the event of a depressurization.

On flights from North America across the Pacific,, particularly the Hawaiian rouites, the 10,000 foot fuel burn is often more restrictive than the single engine fuel burn requirements.

The computation of the Equal Time Point (ETP) is based on the result.

Further, the aircraft must be equipped with enhanced equipment that increases the redundancy of certain systems, specifically hydraulics and electrics. A 3 or 4 engine aircraft has the engine driven generators and hydraulic pump redundancy, but a two engine aircraft does not. On the Boeing products a Hydraulic Motor Controlled Generator (HMG) is installed which provides this redundancy on 2 engine aircraft. Gandrews 03:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality Despute: Early twin-engine high-bypass turbofan airliners

From the article:

"Outside the USA, other countries followed ICAO regulations, which allowed for 90 minutes' diversion time. This fact was exploited by Airbus, launching the world's first twin-engined high-bypass turbofan widebody airliner, the Airbus A300, in 1974. It was about three quarters the size of DC10s and Tristars and for an equivalent load for the same distance and cheaper to operate. The A300 was eagerly snapped up by airlines all over the world."

The bold selection is a very disingenuous statement. Airlines were very cool to the initial Airbus A300, and the first customers were all national airlines of the Airbus member states. In fact, Airbus was forced to build and park a number of "white tail" aircraft due to insufficient demand.

Comparing A300 sales from 1974 through 1977 with the 747, DC-10:

A300 - 53 747 - 105 DC10 - 72

It wasn't until 1978 that Airbus began relieving consistent orders for the A300, which is a far cry from the quotation above. Not to mention, the A300 was ultimately surpassed in orders by its competitor, the B767. Given the fact that Airbus employees were found tampering with Wikipedia articles, I believe this section should be revised to remove bias.

The original text appears to be long gone, but certainly is in keeping with the anti-American, pro-European stance in most Wiki articles. Have tried to point out several cases of this - one particularly funny one was the famous barrel role performed by an American airliner documented in one article where some anglophile had added a paragraph saying basically that "who cares, some British military aircraft had done the same thing." Go look at the article for the British military aircraft and there was no mention of the American airliner. So, okay, put in the exact same citation in reverse in the Brit article. Within minutes, it was pulled with the comment that there is no reason to refer to a 'foreign' aircraft in this article about this highly significant British aircraft (you know, the kind where they built 30 or so of them compared to hundreds of the American aircraft). So, go back and remove the citation in the American aircraft's article - immediately it is reinstated and I get this nasty note from some Wiki-ite that such malicious vandalism will not be tolerated! So, I go back and put in the info back in the British article and put in a note in both that this same Wiki-ite should deal similarly with the vandals there. After a couple more rounds, this or some other Wiki-ite (who cares) finally gets the point and removes the crap from the American a/c article. When I want a good laugh, I find one of these biased statements and correct it, just to see how violently and quickly the anti-American elements takes off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.129.224.141 (talk) 12:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's your own bias, not "pro-Brit" or "pro-European". Stating an American aircraft to perform a feat simply because it was simply the first American aircraft to do so, is bias. Hence no mention on an equivalent article. You mean the kind where they were built in the same numbers as the American aircraft you moron except half weren't written off in hull-loss accidents? Bitter American trying to tamper with Wikipedia, just like Boeing and even the US military. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.23.175 (talk) 22:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very Boeing biased article with no mention of the Airbus A300, furthermore the statement that the Boeing 767 was the first ETOPS is just plane wrong. The caption "the 767, the ETOPS pioneer" Is also highly biased, both the A300 and 767 pioneered ETOPS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.21.218.214 (talk) 12:07, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ETOPS-330

The FAA granted ETOPS 330. It will take some significant reworking of the article to fit this in: [1] [2] —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 04:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EROPS

It used to be called EROPS, not ETOPS. The early 767 flights over the North Atlantic were called EROPS before the name was changed in the mid to late 1980s. I inserted this fact in the article. Archtrain 19:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Add maps?

Would it be possible to add maps showing the range of ETOPS-90/120/180/etc. aeroplanes, so that you can see what kind of areas are excluded if you don't have the required certification? -- pne (talk) 11:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Circle Mapper displays ETOPS maps, but it notes that the area depends on aircraft speed on one engine, which will vary from aircraft to aircraft. Sommerfeld (talk) 23:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Little twins.

Does anybody use B-737 or A-320 on routes where ETOPS is really significant (esp. big waters)? I remember someone in the late 1980s asked for FAA licence to charter wingtip droptank equipped vintage DC-9 planes between LA and Aloha. He was told to find a mental asylum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.210.162 (talk) 17:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WestJet uses 737NG (with ETOPS 180 certification) on their Vancouver (CA) -> Honolulu Route, see http://avherald.com/h?article=42bfd942&opt=0. Thomas EDDV —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.82.84.214 (talk) 20:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SATCOM

Could some expert in this topic add to the article an interpretation of the 2007 FAA "final rule" as regards Satellite-Based Voice Communications? Is the result that aircraft now must have voice SATCOM to fly some routes? (sdsds - talk) 04:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mention "Engines Turn Or Passengers Swim" ?

Around the time that the 777 got its ETOPS certification, I recall a friend who was a pilot mentioning a cynical alternate expansion of the acronym: """Engines Turn, or Passengers Swim""" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sommerfeld (talk • contribs) 23:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You just did! But unless it's particularly notble, and has a reliable source attesting to that notability, it shouldn't go into the text. It is cute, though - I hand't heard that one before. - BillCJ (talk) 23:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was at a company that designs the engine controllers and software for planes like the 777. A guy there that worked on those controllers told me "Engines Turn or People Swim" and then said "sometimes it's 'passengers'". So that's a second source that seems reliable. The text on the page doesn't match either one at the moment. 192.174.37.52 (talk) 19:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I used to read the industry magazine Flight back in the 90s, and several times saw reference to "ETOPS" being expanded by air industry professionals as "Engines Turning Or Passengers Swimming." Citations from Flight might be findable (though not by me at the moment, sorry). 87.81.230.195 (talk) 05:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple reliable sources available for this expression. Here's a couple:

Kumar, Dinesh (2000). Reliability maintenance and logistic support: a life cycle approach (2 ed.). Springer. p. 8. ISBN 0412842408.
Pugh, Peter (2002). The magic of a name: the Rolls Royce Story part three, a family of engines. The Magic of a Name: The Rolls-Royce Story. Icon Books. p. 5. ISBN 1840464054.

It's part of the history, so I think it's worth adding to the article.—RJH (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree...it's part of the "history" and often used jokingly by pilots. It is even spelled out on the commemorative "Jepp Plate" recently produced by Jeppeson (and available on their website) to honor the pilots & crew of US Airways flight 1549 ("Miracle on the Hudson")(note at bottom of the plate: "ETOPS: Engines Turning or People Swimming") —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kc5qnk (talk • contribs) 22:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a very common industry term, one I hear my dear old dad use frequently after a long day at the United Technologies mines 76.199.89.243 (talk) 16:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a former United Airlines Engineering Dept Employee for the 75/76 fleets, I would like to say that 'Engines Turn, or People Swim' was absolutely a term that was thrown around. However I would also like to point out a slight discrepancy in how ETOPS is the aviation acronym for Extended Operations. This is really not correct. According to Boeing, According to United Airlines, and several other airlines I worked with, ETOPS stood for Extended Twin Overwater Passenger Service. Because this was a certification for twin engine wide bodies to fly, over water, with paying passengers, a specified distance away from a potential landing strip should there be an engine failure. The former acronym does not cover this, the latter however does. Sadly, I can find little to no reference about this acronym online, despite in the early 00's it being in pretty much every engineering document that we had. Kaltezar (talk) 11:22, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Early turbine engine experience

This section makes no sense at all, for a number of reasons:

The Rolls-Royce Conway was a low-bypass turbofan (the first to reach production, in fact), not a turbojet. The original contributor is right; the Rolls-Royce Conway is a turbo-jet because all marks has a set of fixed inlet guide vanes in front of the first stage of the low pressure compressor. It was however, the world's first by-pass turbojet in commercial service. 81.110.185.32 (talk) 18:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Boeing 727 first began commercial operations in 1964, the same year the “60-minute rule” was allegedly waived, so the waiver can't have been based on the 727's “excellent record”.
It was designed for the Pratt & Whitney JT8D, not the Conway, though some later models were retrofitted with Rolls-Royce Tay high-bypass turbofans in the early 1990s.
The Boeing 737 first began commercial operations in 1967, after the “60-minute rule” was allegedly waived.
Like the 727, it was initially designed for the Pratt & Whitney JT8D. Boeing later switched to the CFM56.
The only airliners that flew with Conway engines were the four-engine Boeing 707, Douglas DC-8 and Vickers VC10.

DES (talk) 21:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ETOPS Exclusions corrections

You cannot say the route Sao Paulo - Cape Town is outside Etops since it is flied commercially by a B777-300ER.

--177.166.134.117 (talk) 10:31, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Single Engine Cruise Speeds

As not only the single engine flight time endurance (60 min, 180 min etc), but also the single engine cruise speed is needed for calculating the geographical no-go zones for a certain aircraft type, perhaps a section should be added elaborating on the latter Tavernsenses (talk) 10:04, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LAN A340 solely for Sydney?

This article says that "...although LAN (which had acquired A340s solely for its Sydney-Santiago route)..." which seems pretty weird to me because I have been flying by LAN A340s to/from Madrid for several years (before they put 787 on this flight). 78.128.198.193 (talk) 17:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Early ETOPS experience

In the section "Early ETOPS experience" of the article, there is a picture of a 767 with the caption "Boeing 767-300ER, the ETOPS pioneer". However, I'm pretty sure that the first ETOPS aircraft was the A300 which became ETOPS compliant in 1977. Can somebody please find reliable a source and correct the mistake? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csace22003 (talk • contribs) 11:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:56, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even Airbus seems inconsistent about whether they were first!

On the history section of their webpage, they say: "In 1977, the A300B4 became the first “ETOPS compliant” aircraft".
In this document from Airbus Customer Services, they say: "Airbus operators have been operating their A300 twinjet aircraft across the North Atlantic, the Bay of Bengal and the Indian Ocean under the 90-minute ICAO rule since 1976. However, ETOPS officially began in 1985 with the newly issued ETOPS criteria. In 1985, the first ETOPS operations (90 minutes) were made in February by TWA with a 767 and in June by Singapore Airlines with an A310."

So depending on who at Airbus you ask, ETOPS either began in the 1970's with Airbus or in the 1980's with Boeing. 2601:602:A080:1240:25D2:A198:3FB7:1A99 (talk) 17:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Government owned military aircraft

At the end of the intro, the article mentions that government owned aircraft do not have to adhere to ETOPS; however, there is no source for this and I see no reason to believe they don't apply to military aircraft? Xeoknight (talk) 03:42, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The clue is in the name of the name of the organisation administering ETOPS.

ICAO is the International CIVIL Aviation Organisation. Military aircraft fly by their own rules. WendlingCrusader (talk) 10:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Need a simple intro

Experts - this article needs a simple intro to describe what is meant by ETOPS. There is a nice technical description, but I came here as an ignorant n00b to the topic, and still don't really understand what ETOPS is meant to do. I can write something, but maybe someone a bit more versed in this might be better (or perhaps my errors would spur a good correction?) Jed (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have included some wording, you may wish to have a look Apetrov09703 (talk) 12:24, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs serious work

I read Wikipedia a lot (multiple times per day) and this has got to be one of the worse articles I've ever come across, at least for someone such as myself who doesn't know much about the subject. More than three quarters through the article I finally found this line "For example, if an aircraft is rated for ETOPS-180, it means that it is able to fly with full load and just one engine for three hours." Some kind of explanation like this needs to be near the beginning of the article. 185.20.212.44 (talk) 21:35, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]