(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
k. Engine Condition Monitoring. The certificate holder must develop a program for its ETOPS engines that describes the parameters to be monitored, method of data collection, and corrective action processes. The program should reflect the manufacturer’s instructions and industry practices, or the certificate holder should establish a program that demonstrates an equivalent level of monitoring and data analysis. The goal of this monitoring program is to detect deterioration at an early stage, and to allow for corrective action before safe operation is affected.
In order to achieve this goal, engine data analysis should be accomplished as often as practical.
The recommended maximum interval is five days. Engine limit margins must be maintained so that prolonged engine inoperative diversions may be conducted without exceeding approved engine limits (for example, rotor speeds and exhaust gas temperature) at all approved power levels and expected environmental conditions. Engine margins preserved through this program should account for the effects of additional engine loading demands (for example anti-ice and electrical), which may be required during IFSD flight phase associated with the diversion. If oil analysis monitoring, such as the Spectrographic Oil Analysis Program (SOAP), is meaningful and recommended by the manufacturer, the certificate holder should include it in their program.
l. Oil Consumption Monitoring. The certificate holder must develop an engine oil consumption monitoring program to ascertain that there is enough oil to complete the scheduled ETOPS flight. The certificate holder’s consumption limit must not exceed the manufacturer’s recommendations, and it must trend oil consumption. The certificate holder’s oil consumption trending program should be capable of recognizing a spike in the oil consumption rate. A certificate holder who operates an ETOPS aircraft in ETOPS and non-ETOPS operations may elect to develop a program that documents the indicated flight deck oil quantity at each Non- ETOPS station to supplement their oil consumption trend monitoring programs capability to discover an oil spike. For example, if an ETOPS airplane oil is serviced infrequently, and the quantities aren’t regularly recorded, it would be difficult to determine whether the oil added during an ETOPS pre-departure check was the result of normal oil consumption over several flight hours, or a sudden increase which would merit investigation and corrective action prior to the ETOPS flight. The certificate holders trending program may be done manually or by electronic means. The program must consider the amount of oil added at the departing ETOPS station with reference to the running average consumption, as well as monitor for sudden increases in consumption. The monitoring must be continuous including non-ETOPS flights and the oil added at the ETOPS departure station. For example, after servicing, the oil consumption may be determined by maintenance personnel as part of the pre-departure check. The amount of oil added also could be reported to a centralized maintenance control for calculation before the ETOPS flight. If the APU is required for ETOPS, it must be included in the oil consumption monitoring program. Any corrective actions taken regarding oil consumption must be verified before ETOPS departure.
m. APU In-Flight Start Program.
(1) If the airplane type certificate requires an APU but does not normally require the APU to operate during the ETOPS portion of the flight, the certificate holder must develop an in-flight start and run reliability program to ensure that the APU will continue to provide the performance and reliability established by the manufacturer. Specifically, the program is intended to verify the start and run capability. It is not required to actually load the APU in flight with the generator and/or pneumatics. This monitoring program must include periodic sampling Par 301 Page 21
of each airplane’s APU in-flight starting capabilities. Specifically, the certificate holder must ensure that each airplane’s APU periodically is sampled rather than repeatedly sampling the same APUs. The certificate holder may adjust sampling intervals according to system performance and fleet maturity. The certificate holder and its CHDO should periodically review the certificate holder’s APU in-flight start program data to ensure that the in-flight start reliability is maintained. Should the rolling 12-month APU in-flight start rate drop below 95 percent, the certificate holder should initiate an investigation into any common cause effects or systemic errors in procedures.
(2) The certificate holder should include the criteria below in their APU in-flight start program. The certificate holder should make APU in-flight starts subject to the following conditions:
(a) In-flight APU starts do not need to be performed on ETOPS flights; however, the APU must be in the ETOPS configuration in accordance with the appropriate CMP document, if applicable, for credit to be allowed.
(b) If in-flight APU start is performed on an ETOPS flight, the start may be attempted on the return leg.
(c) The start attempt should be initiated before top of descent, or at such time that will ensure a 2-hour cold soak at altitude before the start attempt.
(d) Within route or track constraints, the objective would be met by attempting a start near the highest altitude assigned the route or track, and the final attempt near the lower altitude limits of the route or track, as defined by ATC. These altitudes should be representative of the ETOPS routes flown.
(e) If the APU fails to start on the first attempt, subsequent start attempts may be made within the limits of the airframe and APU manufacturer’s recommended procedures.
(3) The certificate holder must report any operationally required APU in-flight start failures occurring during actual ETOPS operations to its CHDO within 96 hours. The certificate holder also must report any occurrences of an ETOPS configured APU in-flight unsuccessful start attempt occurring during routine sampling (which exceed the airframe and APU manufacturer design specifications) to its CHDO. The final report should include corrective actions taken as well as the status of corrective action programs and fleet upgrades.
n. Configuration Maintenance and Procedures (CMP).
(1) The CMP Standard specifies any additional configuration, maintenance or operational requirement that is uniquely applicable to ETOPS. The requirements in the CMP are established by the FAA at the time of initial ETOPS type design approval of the airplane-engine combination. The CMP document typically is published and maintained by the airplane manufacturer and includes identified CMP requirements. Airplane manufacturers may continue to release CMP revisions beyond the basic revision level required for ETOPS. The CMP revision levels required for specific airplane-engine combinations are typically listed in the front of the CMP or may be controlled through issuance of customized CMP documents. The certificate Page 22 Par 301
holder must implement the basic configuration, maintenance, and operating procedures standard, identified in the CMP, before beginning ETOPS operations unless the CMP includes an incorporation schedule with a later date than the beginning of the certificate holder’s ETOPS operations. If a CMP document exists for an ETOPS certificate holder’s airplane, the certificate holder must ensure that all of the following apply:
(a) Configuration features are installed in the airplanes and engines;
(b) Maintenance procedures are incorporated into the maintenance program;
(c) Demonstrated capabilities are incorporated into the flight operations manual and the minimum equipment list, as required; and
(d) Operators must coordinate any deviation from the manufacturer’s CMP requirements with the CHDO or Aircraft Certification Office, as required by the CMP document.
(2) Each certificate holder must develop a system to ensure all CMP requirements remain incorporated in its airplanes, programs, and manuals throughout the operational life of each airplane, for as long as they operate in ETOPS.
(3) The FAA will mandate any subsequent configuration, maintenance, or procedural changes necessary for continued safe ETOPS operations through the Airworthiness Directive (AD) process. The certificate holder should review and consider voluntarily incorporating any revised CMP standard that enhances airplane reliability and/or performance.
(4) The certificate holder should provide its CHDO a matrix detailing the CMP standard for its proposed ETOPS fleet. The matrix should specifically include each CMP item number, revision level, item description, and reference documentation describing the incorporation method and date.
o. Procedural Changes. Refer to Chapter 5, paragraph 502 for ETOPS maintenance and training program changes.
302. ETOPS MAINTENANCE TRAINING REQUIREMENTS.
a. The certificate holder is responsible for ensuring that all maintenance personnel who perform maintenance on its ETOPS airplanes, including repair stations, vendors, and contract maintenance, have received adequate technical training for the specific airplane-engine combination it intends to operate in ETOPS. The certificate holder should review the existing airplane-engine combination maintenance training program with its CHDO to ensure that it adequately provides the necessary training.
b. Additionally, the certificate holder must develop ETOPS specific training that focuses on the special nature of ETOPS and take measures to insure that this training is given to all personnel involved in ETOPS. ETOPS specific training is in addition to the certificate holder’s accepted maintenance training program used to qualify individuals for specific airplanes and engines and may be included in the accepted maintenance training curricula. It thus, becomes the certificate holder’s ETOPS training program. The goal of this training is to ensure that all Par 301 Page 23
personnel involved in ETOPS properly accomplish ETOPS maintenance requirements. The certificate holder is responsible with acceptance from the CHDO to determine which personnel are involved in ETOPS, and ensure that each person’s level of ETOPS training is commensurate with their level of involvement with ETOPS airplanes. Customarily, ETOPS training is intended for Line and Hanger Maintenance personnel, Centralized Maintenance Control personnel and Engineering personnel, where applicable, but it does not necessarily include the various shop level employees. For example, a mechanic who is performing pre-departure service checks may be required to have a higher level of ETOPS training and qualification than a mechanic performing routine tasks on non ETOPS significant systems during a heavy maintenance check.
A technician working ETOPS significant systems in an HMV (Heavy Maintenance Visit) environment must be appropriately trained for ETOPS, but need not be ETOPS qualified.
Recurrent training in all maintenance areas should be established and used to inform personnel involved in ETOPS about new equipment, requirements, operator programs, etc. Experience has shown recurrent training is a valuable instrument in “lessons learned” for ETOPS operations.
c. In the line maintenance environment, ETOPS-qualified maintenance personnel are those who have successfully completed the certificate holder's ETOPS qualification program, and who have satisfactorily performed extended range tasks under the direct supervision of an FAA-certificated maintenance person. The person giving the direct supervision must have had previous experience with maintaining the particular make and model airplane being used by the certificate holder. For new airplanes, it is understood the certificate holder may not have an FAA certified maintenance person available who has previous experience with the newly introduced make and model airplane. In this instance, the training received from the manufacturer's maintenance training program, or a comparable program would be acceptable.
303. ETOPS FLIGHT OPERATIONS REQUIREMENTS.
a. Airplane Performance Data. The certificate holder may not dispatch an airplane on an ETOPS flight unless it makes performance data available to its flight crewmembers and dispatchers that support all phases of ETOPS operations, including divert scenarios. This performance data will contain the following information:
(1) Detailed one-engine inoperative performance data including fuel flow for standard and nonstandard atmospheric conditions, which should be demonstrated as a function of airspeed and power setting, where appropriate. This data will cover:
(a) Driftdown (includes net performance);
(b) Cruise altitude coverage including 10,000 feet;
(c) Holding; and
(d) Altitude capability (includes net performance).
(2) Detailed all-engine-operating performance data, including nominal fuel flow data, for standard and nonstandard atmospheric conditions, which should be demonstrated as a function of airspeed and power setting, where appropriate. This data will cover:
Page 24 Par 302
(a) Cruise altitude coverage including 10,000 feet; and
(b) Holding.
(3) Details of any other conditions relevant to ETOPS that can cause significant deterioration of performance, such as ice accumulation on the unprotected surfaces of the airplane, RAM Air Turbine (RAT) deployment, and thrust reverser deployment if such data is available.
b. En Route Airport Information.
(1) In accordance with § 121.97, the certificate holder must maintain current status information on the operational capabilities of the airports designated for use as ETOPS alternates. “Public protection” has been a historic requirement for all domestic and flag operations. For ETOPS greater than 180 minutes and for operations traversing the North and South Polar Areas, this requirement has been expanded to include the listing of facilities at each airport, or in the immediate area, sufficient to protect the passengers and crew from the elements and to see to their welfare. Such a requirement can be interpreted to encompass the time from landing until satisfactory recovery of passengers and crew based on the certificate holder’s passenger recovery plan required by § 121.135 and discussed in Chapter 4, paragraph 403c(5) of this AC.
(2) The certificate holder’s program should provide flight crewmembers with current weather and information on a set of adequate airports in the ETOPS portion of the flight that are within the maximum diversion capability of the airplane on the planned route of flight as an aid to the flightcrew in contingency planning. Any appropriate facility information and other data concerning these airports should be provided to flight crewmembers in a clear, concise, userfriendly format for use when planning a diversion.
(3) Section 121.135 requires that any certificate holder conducting passenger flag operations must include in their flight operations manuals or equivalent documentation available to the flightcrews:
(a) For ETOPS greater than 180 minutes, a specific passenger recovery plan for each ETOPS Alternate Airport used in those operations; and
(b) For operations in the North Polar Area and South Polar Area, a specific passenger recovery plan for designated diversion airports.
c. Dispatch.
(1) Alternates. A certificate holder may not dispatch an airplane in ETOPS unless the required takeoff, destination and alternate airports, including ETOPS alternate airports are listed in the cockpit documentation (e.g., computerized flight plan) and are identified and listed in the dispatch release. Because ETOPS alternates serve a purpose different from that of a destination alternate, and may be used in the event of a diversion with an engine failure or loss of a primary airplane system, a certificate holder should not list an airport on the dispatch/flight release as an ETOPS alternate unless that airport’s services and facilities are adequate for such a diversion. A Par 303 Page 25
certificate holder of a two-engine airplane should exercise ETOPS beyond 180 minutes authority only if there are no ETOPS alternates that are within a 180-minute diversion distance from the planned route of flight. In addition, those adequate airports closest to the planned route of flight should be those first considered as ETOPS alternates.
(2) Flight Planning Limitation. The certificate holder’s ETOPS flight planning program must ensure that the planned route of flight remains within the authorized ETOPS area of operation in accordance with § 121.633 as follows:
(a) For ETOPS up to and including 180 minutes and 207 minutes in the North Pacific Area of Operation, the time required to fly the distance to the planned ETOPS alternate, at the approved one-engine inoperative cruise speed in still air and standard conditions, may not exceed the time specified for the airplane’s most time limited ETOPS significant system (including cargo fire suppression) minus 15 minutes.
(b) For ETOPS beyond 180 minutes, the time required to fly the distance to the planned ETOPS alternate, at the all-engines-operating cruise speed at the normal all-enginecruise altitude, correcting for wind and temperature, may not exceed the certified capability for the airplane’s most limiting fire suppression system minus 15 minutes. Three- and four-engine turbine engine-powered airplanes not meeting these requirements as of the effective date of § 121.633 may continue ETOPS operations until February 15, 2013.
(c) Further, for ETOPS beyond 180 minutes, the time required to fly the distance to the planned ETOPS alternate, at the approved one-engine inoperative cruise speed at the normal one engine inoperative level off altitude, correcting for wind and temperature, may not exceed the certified capability for the airplane’s most time limited ETOPS significant system (except for the most limiting fire suppression system) minus 15 minutes.
NOTE: 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. Once such required fire suppression systems are installed (no later than February 15, 2013) and once the ETOPS significant system time limits are established as required by appendix K of part 25, § K25.1.7 (no later than February 17, 2015), the operator must follow the flight planning limitations in §§ 121.633(b)(1) and 121.633(b)(2).
(3) Landing Distance. For the runway expected to be used, the landing distance available, as specified by the airport authority, must be sufficient based on airplane flight manual landing performance data to meet the landing distance limitations specified in § 121.197. The altitude of the airport, wind conditions, runway surface conditions, and airplane handling characteristics should be taken into account.
(4) Airport Rescue and Fire Fighting Service (RFFS).
(a) The following minimum International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) RFFS categories must be available at each airport listed as an ETOPS Alternate Airport in a dispatch or flight release:
Page 26 Par 303