minutes, the requested level of ETOPS authority in a certificate holder’s application will necessarily have to be assessed differently for ETOPS beyond 180 minutes.
(1) Two-Engine Airplanes up to 180-Minute ETOPS and 207-Minute ETOPS Authority in the North Pacific Area of Operations. The ETOPS area of operation is the area bounded by distance circles representing the approved one-engine inoperative cruise speed under standard conditions in still air chosen by the applicant. The actual flight plan must comply with the fuel supply requirements in § 121.646(b) and must therefore account for wind. However, the flight planning limitations of § 121.633(a) for airplane systems do not require the operator to account for wind in such calculations for flight planning and for determining the ETOPS area of operations in these cases. This allows the applicant to choose an operating authority in his or her application that is based on the “ETOPS area of operation” determination. In other words, the distance from alternates in a certificate holder’s route planning exercise will be the same value used to determine the type design criteria for the airplane-engine combination used in the operation, and the ETOPS approval necessary to fly the route under all flight planning conditions.
(2) ETOPS Beyond 180 Minutes (Two-Engine Airplanes and All Passenger- Carrying Airplanes With More Than 2 Engines). As required by § 121.633(b), for ETOPS beyond 180 minutes for all airplanes, the ETOPS operation must account for the effects of wind and temperature on the calculated distances. Consequently the planning for an ETOPS flight beyond 180 minutes is more complex.
(a) The certificate holder should first conduct a route planning exercise for each planned city pairing to determine the diversion authority needed in still air conditions. If the route or segments of the route exceed 180 minutes based on one engine inoperative speed and still air, then a secondary planning exercise (that may be required seasonally) should be conducted that factors in expected winds and temperatures on that route. The distance between adequate alternate airports on the route is converted into time (minutes) computed for all engine cruise speed, as well as engine inoperative speed. The number of minutes cannot exceed the time-limited system certified capability (cargo fire suppression and the other most limiting system)that is identified in the Configuration Maintenance Procedures (CMP) or Aircraft Flight Manual (AFM) (or any other FAA-approved manufacturer’s document) less the 15-minute pad.
The operator needs to determine how much system capability is required for the planned route and equip its airplane to have sufficient margins. Finally, for the actual flight, the operator’s flight planning must be within the airplane systems capability for the selected ETOPS alternate airports on the planned route based on diversion times that are calculated using known or forecast winds and temperature conditions.
(b) As a minimum, the certificate holder must ensure that the time-limited systems requirements of § 121.633(b) are met at the equal-time points between ETOPS alternates determined by the most limiting en route fuel supply requirements of § 121.646(b), commonly referred to as the ETOPS critical fuel scenario. Certificate holders flying three- and four engine airplanes, prior to the established installation time and certification time requirements of the regulation for these systems and their airplanes, are exempt from these flight planning limitations.
Par 205 Page 9
(c) Once the required fire suppression systems are installed (no later than February15, 2013 for turbine powered airplanes with more than two engines) the certificate holder must follow the flight planning limitations of § 121.633(b)(1). As required by § 121.162(d), for airplanes with more than 2 engines manufactured on or after February 17, 2015, the CMP document for that model will list the airplane’s most limiting ETOPS Significant System time issued in accordance with § 25.3(c). The Certificate holder operating an airplaneengine combination with more than two engines is required to comply with § 121.633(b)(2) if the CMP lists the most limiting ETOPS Significant System time.
d. Credit for the Driftdown. For the purposes of computing distances for ETOPS Area of Operation, credit for driftdown may be taken.
e. Actual Diversion Time. Actual diversion time may exceed the authorized diversion time as long as the flight is conducted within the authorized ETOPS Area of Operation, and complies with the requirements of § 121.633.
206. ETOPS ALTERNATE REQUIREMENTS.
a. One of the distinguishing features of ETOPS operations is the concept of an en route alternate airport being available where an airplane can divert following a single failure or a combination of failures that require a diversion. Most airplanes operate in an environment where there usually is a choice of diversion airports available within a close proximity to the route of flight. However, a certificate holder conducting ETOPS may only have one alternate airport within a range dictated by the endurance of a particular airframe system (for example, the cargo fire suppressant system), and that system or system failure may dictate the approved maximum diversion time for that route. Therefore, it is important that any airport designated as an ETOPS alternate have the capabilities, services, and facilities to safely support the operation. The weather conditions at the time of arrival should provide assurance that adequate visual references will be available upon arrival at decision height (DH) or minimum descent altitude (MDA), and that the surface wind conditions and corresponding runway surface conditions will be acceptable to permit the approach and landing to be safely completed with an engine and/or systems inoperative.
b. At dispatch, an en route alternate must meet ETOPS alternate weather requirements in § 121.625 and as specified in Chapter 3, paragraph 303c(5) of this AC and in the certificate holder’s OpSpecs. Because of the natural variability of weather conditions with time, as well as the need to determine the suitability of a particular en route alternate before departure, such requirements are higher than the weather minimums required to initiate an instrument approach.
This is necessary prior to the time that the instrument approach would be conducted, to provide for some deterioration in weather conditions after planning. This increases the probability that the flight will land safely after a diversion to an alternate airport. The airport of departure (takeoff) and the destination airport (unless used concurrently as an ETOPS alternate) are not required to meet the weather minima for ETOPS alternates, as these airports are subject to other regulations (e.g., §§ 121.617, 121.621, and 121.623).
c. While en route, the forecast weather for designated ETOPS alternates should remain at or above operating minima. This provides ETOPS flights with the ability to resolve all diversion Page 10 Par 205
decisions successfully throughout the flight. The suitability of an en route alternate airport for an airplane that encounters an in-flight situation that necessitates a diversion during ETOPS operations is based on a determination that the airport still is suitable for the circumstances, and the weather and field conditions at that airport permit an instrument approach to be initiated and a landing completed.
207. ETOPS IN-SERVICE EXPERIENCE REQUIREMENTS.
a. When AC 120-42 was first released in 1985, two-engine ETOPS was a new concept and ETOPS approvals were sought on airframe-engine combinations that were already in service.
Hence, it was logical to establish criteria for approvals based on in-service experience. At that same time, the FAA recognized the possibility that other approval methods could be developed without in-service experience, and accordingly, provided statements that recognized those options. The original two-engine ETOPS requirements for engine reliability were based on a world fleet in-service experience of 250,000 hours. For 120-minute ETOPS, the FAA additionally required the certificate holder to have 12-consecutive months of operational in-service experience with the airplane-engine combination (AEC). For 180-minute ETOPS, the FAA required the certificate holder to have previously gained 12 consecutive months of operational in-service experience with the specified AEC conducting 120-minute ETOPS. These basic, two-engine in-service requirements have been retained and are discussed in Appendix 3.
Achieving these levels of experience, combined with the required levels of engine reliability, is an acceptable means of attaining ETOPS approval for operators of two-engine airplanes.
b. At the time AC 120-42A was drafted, the FAA recognized that a reduction of two-engine in-service experience requirements or substitution of in-service experience on another airplane would be possible. Any reduction was to be based on an evaluation of the certificate holder’s ability and competence to achieve the necessary reliability for the particular AEC in ETOPS. For example, a reduction in in-service experience would be considered for a certificate holder who could show extensive in-service experience with a related engine on another airplane that had achieved acceptable reliability. The FAA also allowed certificate holders unable to initially fly ETOPS routes at the lesser thresholds to make use of ETOPS simulation or demonstration programs in their application for 180-minute ETOPS. Eventually specific guidance material (AC 120-42A, appendix 7, Accelerated ETOPS Operational Approval) was developed by the FAA permitting ETOPS without accumulating in-service experience in the airplane-engine combination. Most subsequent ETOPS approvals have been granted under these guidelines and this method is retained in Appendix 3.
208. OPERATIONAL RELIABILITY AND SYSTEMS SUITABILITY REQUIREMENTS.
a. The safety of long-range operations such as ETOPS depends on the reliability of all airplane systems including the propulsion systems. Time-limited systems such as cargo compartment fire suppression/containment capability must be considered (§ 121.633). The certificate holder must also have an established program that monitors the reliability of systems significant to ETOPS (§ 121.374).
Par 206 Page 11
b. In order to achieve and maintain the required engine reliability standards, the certificate holder operating a two-engine airplane in ETOPS should assess the proposed maintenance and reliability program’s ability to maintain a satisfactory level of airplane systems reliability for the particular airplane-engine combination. All certificate holders should design the flight operations and, if applicable, the maintenance programs for ETOPS with an objective to preclude diversions and, if a diversion does occur, to protect that diversion. Required ETOPS maintenance practices also must minimize the potential for procedural and human errors that could be detrimental to the safety of the operation. Fuel planning must account for the possibility of a depressurization and/or failure of an engine with considerations for in-flight icing conditions (§ 121.646).
c. The type design requirements for ETOPS certification consider the probability of occurrence of conditions that would reduce the capability of the airplane or the ability of the flight crewmember to cope with an adverse operating condition. System failures or malfunctions occurring during extended range operations could affect flight crewmember workload and procedures. Although the demands on the flight crewmember may increase, a manufacturer applying for ETOPS type design approval must consider crew workload, operational implications, and the crew's and passengers' physiological needs during continued operation with failure effects for the longest diversion time for which it seeks approval. The manufacturer must also conduct flight tests to validate the adequacy of the airplane's flying qualities and performance, and the flightcrew's ability to safely conduct an ETOPS diversion with expected system failures and malfunctions. An ETOPS operator should carefully consider the possible adverse effects that changes in airplane equipment or operating procedures may have on the original evaluations conducted when the airplane was approved for ETOPS before implementing such changes.
d. Following a determination that the airframe systems and propulsion systems are ETOPS type design approved as per part 25, an in-depth review of the applicant’s required ETOPS programs will be accomplished to show the ability to achieve and maintain an acceptable level of systems reliability, and to safely conduct these operations.
Page 12 Par 208
CHAPTER 3. REQUIREMENTS FOR ETOPS AUTHORIZATION
300. ETOPS REQUIREMENTS. The FAA may approve ETOPS for various areas of operation in accordance with the requirements and limitations specified in part 121, appendix P.
ETOPS must be authorized in the certificate holder’s OpSpecs and conducted in compliance with those sections of part 121 applicable to ETOPS.
a. As of February 15, 2008, certificate holders operating passenger-carrying airplanes with more than two engines, having the authority to operate on specific ETOPS routes should not need to re-apply for their specific route authority. However, the certificate holder is required to comply with all the applicable ETOPS flight operational regulations described in this AC, and must have their ETOPS programs and processes approved by their certificate-holding district office (CHDO) with the concurrence of the Director, Flight Standards Service.
b. The certificate holder’s ETOPS requirements must be specified in their maintenance and operations programs. Maintenance requirements necessary to support ETOPS are explained in paragraphs 301 and 302. Flight operations requirements necessary to support ETOPS are described in paragraphs 303 and 304.
c. The requirements for the various levels of ETOPS authorities are listed in tabular form in Appendix 2.
301. MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR TWO-ENGINE ETOPS AUTHORIZATION. The certificate holder conducting ETOPS with two-engine airplanes must comply with the ETOPS maintenance requirements as specified in § 121.374. These requirements are discussed in paragraphs a through o as follows:
a. Continuous Airworthiness Maintenance Program (CAMP). The basic maintenance program for the airplane being considered for ETOPS is a CAMP that may currently be approved for a non-ETOPS certificate holder for a particular make and model airplane-engine combination. The basic CAMP must be a maintenance and inspection program that contains the instructions for continued airworthiness (ICA) based on the manufacturer’s maintenance program, or those contained in a certificate holder’s maintenance manual approved in its OpSpecs. The certificate holder and its CHDO must review the CAMP to ensure it provides an adequate basis for development of a ETOPS maintenance program. The certificate holder’s ETOPS CAMP must include specific ETOPS requirements, which will be incorporated as supplemental requirements to the basic CAMP. These supplemental requirements include the enhanced maintenance and training processes that will ensure ETOPS airplanes achieve and maintain the level of performance and reliability necessary for ETOPS operations. These supplemental requirements, referred to in the industry as ETOPS processes or ETOPS process elements, currently should be in place for existing ETOPS operations. Prospective ETOPS certificate holders must supplement their basic CAMP with those program elements defined in paragraphs b through o below.
b. ETOPS Maintenance Document. The certificate holder must develop a document for use by personnel involved in ETOPS. This may be a separate document or a part of other maintenance documents. It need not be inclusive but should, at least, reference the maintenance Par 300 Page 13
program and other pertinent requirements clearly indicating where all facets of the ETOPS maintenance program are located in the certificate holder’s document system. All ETOPS requirements, including supportive programs, procedures, duties, and responsibilities, must be identified. The ETOPS document(s) must reflect the actual policies and procedures the certificate holder expects their ETOPS maintenance personnel to adhere to. The document(s) should be user friendly, and be accessible to all affected personnel. The initial document must be submitted to the CHDO and be approved before being adopted.
c. ETOPS PRE-DEPARTURE SERVICE CHECK (PDSC).
(1) The certificate holder must develop an ETOPS PDSC to verify that the airplane and certain significant items are airworthy and ETOPS capable. Each certificate holder’s PDSC may vary in form and content. The prerequisites for an acceptable PDSC are content and suitability for the specific certificate holder’s needs.
(2) All certificate holders must address ETOPS significant system airworthiness in their ETOPS maintenance program, including the PDSC. Specifically, the PDSC is a maintenance task that should include an applicable maintenance records review and an interior and exterior inspection. The PDSC is sometimes referred to as an expanded transit check inspection. The PDSC should include visual inspections and procedures applicable to determining ETOPS Significant Systems airworthiness status. The airworthiness status determination should include a process for determining engine and auxiliary power unit (APU) oil quantities, and consumption rates prior to ETOPS dispatch.
NOTE: Proper servicing of fluids, such as engine, APU, generator systems, and hydraulic systems is a vital ingredient to successful ETOPS operations.
Some current ETOPS operators have had incidents resulting from improper fluid servicing, or not properly determining or addressing high consumption rates. This has resulted in IFSDs and diversions. Certificate holders should consider this area very seriously when developing their maintenance checks, including the PDSC.
(3) Some certificate holders may elect to include tasks in the PDSC that are driven by their reliability programs and are not related to ETOPS significant systems. However, the certificate holder must clearly identify the ETOPS related tasks on their PDSC if non-ETOPS qualified maintenance personnel are to accomplish the non-ETOPS tasks. An appropriately trained maintenance person, who is ETOPS qualified, and authorized by the certificate holder, must accomplish and certify by signature the completion of ETOPS specific tasks. An appropriately trained person who is ETOPS qualified and authorized by the certificate holder must certify by signature, that the ETOPS pre-departure service check has been completed.
Appropriately trained persons are those that have satisfactorily completed the certificate holder’s ETOPS training program. The signatory person that certifies the completion of the PDSC must also meet the following criteria:
(a) Inside the United States, the signatory person holds a U.S. mechanic’s certificate with airframe and powerplant ratings, and works for an operator authorized to engage in part 121 operation, or works for a part 145 repair station.
Page 14 Par 301
(b) Outside the United States, the signatory person holds a U.S. mechanics certificate with airframe and powerplant ratings, or holds a certificate in accordance with § 43.17(c) (1) or,
(c) Works for an ETOPS maintenance entity and has the requisite experience or specific training needed to accomplish the task and is authorized to complete the PDSC and return the aircraft to service on behalf of the ETOPS maintenance entity; the signatory person does not have to hold a U.S. or Canadian certificate.
NOTE: An ETOPS maintenance entity is an entity that has been authorized to perform ETOPS maintenance and authorized by the certificate holder to complete ETOPS pre-departure service checks. That entity is certificated to engage in part 121 operations; a repair station certificated under part 145, or an entity authorized pursuant to § 43.17(c)(2).
(4) The PDSC must be certified complete immediately before each scheduled ETOPS flight. The term “immediately” has historically meant to be no more than 2 to 4 hours before the flight. However, the FAA may grant some relief from this time period under certain conditions.
The certificate holder should explain any rational for such deviations in its ETOPS maintenance document, which is approved by its CHDO.
(5) A PDSC may not be required before all ETOPS flights. The FAA may grant relief following irregular operations because of non-mechanical issues, such as weather or medical emergency diversions, or when operating ETOPS into specific areas of operation. For example, if an airplane scheduled for an ETOPS flight receives a PDSC before departure and subsequently must divert or turn back for reasons other than mechanical, the certificate holder must identify in its ETOPS maintenance document what procedures its flight operations and maintenance personnel would follow to preclude performing another PDSC. If a mechanical discrepancy develops as a result of the diversion or turn back, the certificate holder may have to perform another PDSC. For example, when an overweight landing inspection reveals an ETOPS Significant System discrepancy that requires maintenance intervention, another PDSC is required.
(6) In areas where prevailing weather conditions are stable and generally do not approach extremes in temperature, wind, ceiling, and visibility, such as in the Caribbean/Western Atlantic (75-minute ETOPS) and Micronesia routes (90-minute ETOPS), the service check may not be required for the return leg of an ETOPS flight. This check is not precluded by any other maintenance check.
d. Dual Maintenance.
(1) ETOPS dual maintenance, otherwise referred to as identical maintenance, multiple maintenance, and simultaneous maintenance, requires special consideration by the certificate holder. This is to recognize and preclude common cause human failure modes. Proper verification processes or operational tests, prior to ETOPS, are required when dual maintenance on significant systems occurs.
Par 301 Page 15
(2) Dual maintenance on the “same” ETOPS Significant System can be described as actions performed on the same element of identical, but separate ETOPS Significant Systems during the same routine or non-routine visit. Examples of maintenance on the “same” ETOPS Significant System are: maintenance on both air cycle machines (or equivalent ) in the air conditioning systems during a turnaround flight; removal of either both engine oil filters, or both chip detectors; and replacement of both chip detectors.
(3) Dual maintenance on “substantially similar” ETOPS Significant Systems specifically addresses maintenance actions on engine-driven components on both engines. An example of dual maintenance on “substantially similar” ETOPS Significant Systems could include: replacement of the No. 1 Integrated Drive Generator (IDG) and the No. 2 Engine Driven Pump (EDP).
(4) The certificate holder must establish procedures that minimize identical maintenance actions from being scheduled or applied to multiple similar elements in any ETOPS Significant System during the same routine or non-routine maintenance visit. In order to manage this requirement the certificate holder must develop a list of fleet-specific ETOPS Significant Systems and include them in their ETOPS maintenance document(s).
(5) The FAA recognizes that sometimes ETOPS dual maintenance actions cannot be avoided or precluded because of unforeseen circumstances that occur during ETOPS operations. In the line maintenance arena, one example would be when an ETOPS airplane has inbound discrepancies on both engines’ oil systems, or there is a generator replacement on one engine, and an oil system discrepancy on the other engine. Additionally, staggering maintenance on ETOPS Significant Systems in the heavy maintenance arena is not always possible or feasible. However, to minimize human factor common cause risk, the certificate holder should attempt to minimize dual maintenance on ETOPS Significant Systems wherever/whenever possible.
(6) In any event, when dual maintenance is performed on a ETOPS Significant System, the certificate holder must have written procedures in its ETOPS maintenance document that addresses this situation. At a minimum, the certificate holder must ensure:
(a) Separate ETOPS-qualified maintenance persons perform the tasks,
(b) The maintenance action on each of the elements in the ETOPS Significant System is performed by the same technician under the direct supervision of a second ETOPS qualified individual, and
(c) It verifies the effectiveness of the corrective actions to those ETOPS Significant Systems before the airplane enters the ETOPS area of operation. This verification action must be performed using ground verification methods, and in some instances, in-flight verification methods described in the next section of this AC. On an exception basis, the same ETOPS–qualified technician, under the supervision of an ETOPS qualified Centralized Maintenance Control person, may perform the dual maintenance and the ground verification methods only if in-flight verification action is performed.
Page 16 Par 301
(7) The FAA acknowledges that the servicing of fluids and gases is not considered maintenance; however, these tasks, when done improperly have adversely affected ETOPS operations. The certificate holder should recognize the hazard associated with improper servicing and do all possible to mitigate the associated risk. Specifically, servicing tasks such as engine, APU, and generator system oil servicing are tasks that require high levels of attention. The FAA encourages the certificate holder to ensure that its programs have separate individuals perform such servicing. However, the FAA recognizes that many certificate holder’s route and organizational structures may not lend themselves to these procedures. The certificate holder’s program should include detailed servicing instructions, or make readily available servicing instructions. Additionally, the certificate holders should consider including oil servicing in their ETOPS OJT program, regardless of whether one individual or multiple individuals perform the tasks.
e. Verification Program.
(1) The certificate holder must develop a verification program for resolution of airplane discrepancies (corrective actions) on ETOPS significant systems. This program must include corrective action confirmation in specific areas such as engine shutdown, significant system failure, adverse trends, or any prescribed event that could effect an ETOPS operation. The program must ensure corrective action is taken and confirmed successful before the airplane enters an ETOPS area of operation. The certificate holder must verify the effectiveness of the corrective actions following the maintenance action and prior to an ETOPS flight or prior to passing the ETOPS entry point. The ground verification method is accomplished by following the ICA contained in the Airplane Maintenance Manuals (AMM) or the certificate holder’s maintenance manuals. These ICAs include built-in test equipment (BITE) and functional/operational checks that often include leak checks after ground runs.
(2) Normally ground verification is acceptable to ensure corrective action. Under certain conditions ground verification beyond that recommended in the ICA or in-flight verification may be required. An example of a condition that would require an in-flight verification is the replacement of an APU component that could affect the APU’s ability to start at the ETOPS cruise altitude after cold soak. In-flight verification may be conducted on revenue flights, provided the action is completed before the ETOPS entry point. In those cases where the verification flight will reach the ETOPS entry point approximately 60 minutes into the flight,
e.g., departing from an island, and the inflight verification is for APU inflight starting which requires a two-hour cold soak, (see paragraph 301m., “APU In-Flight Start Program”), the operator can initiate the flight with the APU running and shut it down two hours prior to top of descent and initiate the inflight APU start before top of descent. Ground maintenance personnel should coordinate with flight operations personnel whenever an in-flight verification is required.
Each certificate holder must identify its ETOPS significant systems, ground verification requirements, and in-flight verification requirements in its ETOPS maintenance document.
(3) The certificate holder must establish a means to ensure any required verification action is accomplished. The certificate holder must include a clear description of who initiates verification actions and who is responsible for completing the actions in its ETOPS maintenance document.
Par 301 Page 17
f. Task Identification. The certificate holder must identify all tasks that must be accomplished or certified as complete by ETOPS-qualified maintenance personnel. The intent is to have ETOPS-trained maintenance personnel accomplish these tasks because they are related to ETOPS. ETOPS specific tasks must be:
(1) The certificate holder must identify all tasks that must be accomplished or certified as complete by ETOPS qualified personnel. The intent is to have ETOPS trained maintenance personnel accomplish these identified tasks because they are related to ETOPS. ETOPS specific tasks should be:
(a) Identified on the certificate holder’s work forms and related instructions, or
(b) Parceled together and identified as an ETOPS package.
(2) If a certificate holder does not identify ETOPS-related task in their current maintenance program, then all tasks must be accomplished by ETOPS-qualified personnel.
g. Centralized Maintenance Control Procedures. An ETOPS certificate holder, regardless of the size of its ETOPS fleet, must have a centralized entity responsible for oversight of the ETOPS maintenance operation. The certificate holder must develop and clearly define in its ETOPS maintenance document specific procedures, duties, and responsibilities for involvement of their centralized maintenance control personnel in the ETOPS operation. These established procedures and centralized control processes would preclude an airplane from being dispatched for ETOPS flights after an engine IFSD, ETOPS significant system failure, or discovery of significant adverse trends in system performance without appropriate corrective action having been taken.
h. ETOPS Parts Control. The certificate holder must develop a parts control program to ensure the proper parts and configurations are maintained for ETOPS. The program must include procedures to verify that the parts installed on ETOPS airplanes during parts borrowing or pooling arrangements, as well as those parts used after repair or overhaul, maintain the required ETOPS configuration.
i. Reliability Program.
(1) The certificate holder must develop an ETOPS reliability program or enhance its existing reliability program to incorporate the ETOPS supplemental requirements. This program must be designed with early identification and prevention of ETOPS-related problems as the primary goal. The program must be event-oriented, and incorporate reporting procedures for significant events detrimental to ETOPS flights. For those certificate holders that do not have an FAA-approved reliability program, their Continuing Analysis and Surveillance System (CASS) must be enhanced to achieve ETOPS reliability goals. The certificate holder should submit regular ETOPS reliability reports to its CHDO. The frequency of such reporting should be agreed upon between the certificate holder and the CHDO. Customarily, monthly reports have been deemed an acceptable frequency.
Page 18 Par 301
(2) In addition to the reporting requirements in § 121.703, the certificate holder must report the following items on their ETOPS airplanes (regardless of ETOPS or Non-ETOPS operation) within 96 hours to its CHDO:
(a) IFSDs, except planned IFSDs performed for flight training.
(b) Diversions and turnbacks for failures, malfunctions, or defects associated with any ETOPS Significant Systems.
(c) Uncommanded power or thrust changes or surges.
(d) Inability to control the engine or obtain desired power or thrust.
(e) Inadvertent fuel loss or unavailability, or uncorrectable fuel imbalance in flight.
(f) Failures, malfunctions or defects associated with ETOPS Significant Systems.
(g) Any event that would jeopardize the safe flight and landing of the airplane on an ETOPS flight.
(3) The reporting of any of the above items must include the information specified in § 121.703(e).
(4) The certificate holder must conduct an investigation into the cause of the occurrence of any event listed in § 121.703 and § 121.374(h)(1) and submit its findings to its CHDO.
NOTE: The FAA encourages operator investigations include manufacturers when feasible. If the CHDO determines additional corrective action is necessary, the certificate holder must further investigate and implement appropriate corrective action acceptable to the CHDO.
j. Propulsion System Monitoring.
(1) The certificate holder must monitor its fleet average IFSD rate for the specified airplane-engine combination. It should establish firm criteria regarding the actions it will take when it detects adverse trends in propulsion system conditions. If the IFSD rate, computed on a 12-month rolling average, exceeds the values in the following table, the certificate holder, in conjunction with its CHDO, must investigate common cause effects or systemic errors and submit the findings to its CHDO within 30 days.
NOTE: It may be applicable to combine some similar airplane-engine combinations, due to the commonality of engine type, e.g., 777-200LR and - 300ER with GE90-110/115B engine, where the engine build is the same and operations are similar.
Par 301 Page 19
In Flight Shut Down Rates Number of Engines Engine Hours ETOPS ETOPS Authorization 2 .05/1000 Up to and including 120 minutes.
2 .03/1000 Beyond 120 minutes up to and including 180 minutes and 207 minutes in North Pacific.
2 .02/1000 Greater than 180 minutes (Except for 207 minutes in North Pacific.
(2) With respect to maintenance, the purpose of monitoring IFSD rates is to provide FAA and operators with a tool for measuring the health of a fleet of ETOPS-approved airplanes in service. Causes of IFSDs or other engine and propulsion system problems may be associated with type design problems and/or maintenance and operational procedures applied to the airplane. It is very important that the certificate holder identify the root cause of events so that an indication of corrective action is available, such as a fundamental design problem that requires an effective hardware (or software) final fix. Repetitive inspections may be satisfactory as interim solutions, but longer-term design solutions, such as terminating actions, may be required if possible. Design problems can affect the whole fleet. The FAA will not revoke an existing ETOPS operational approval solely because of a high IFSD rate. A certificate holder who experiences a type design related event need not be operationally penalized for a problem that is design-related and may not be of their own making. However, maintenance or operational problems may be wholly, or partially, the responsibility of the certificate holder. If a certificate holder has an unacceptable IFSD rate risk attributed to common cause or a systemic problem in operational practices or the maintenance program, then action carefully tailored to that certificate holder may be required, and may include a reduction of the certificate holder’s diversion limit.
(3) The certificate holder must investigate an IFSD rate higher than the 12-month rolling average standard that occurs for a mature fleet after the commencement of ETOPS (Refer to the IFSD Rates table above). The certificate holder must investigate any indication of a high IFSD rate; however, it should consider that in the case of the smaller fleet, the high IFSD rate may be because of the limited number of engine operating hours used as the denominator for the rate calculation. This can cause an IFSD jump well above the standard rate because of a single IFSD event. The underlying causes for such a jump in the rate will have to be considered by the Administrator’s representative. On occasion, a particular event may also warrant implementation of corrective action even though the overall IFSD rate is not being exceeded.
(4) The 30-day reporting criteria of paragraph 301j(1) is intended to ensure that the certificate holder provides the FAA timely notification of the status of an event investigation.
The certificate holder may or may not have root cause or terminating action at the end of the 30-day period, and further discussions with the FAA may be required after this period.
(5) The certificate holder may designate a sub-fleet engine/airframe combination for the purposes of the IFSD monitoring/rate program. The operator may include the IFSD statistics of all engines that are ETOPS configured and are maintained in accordance with the operators ETOPS program even if used on non-ETOPS airplanes.
Page 20 Par 301