Sign in to follow this  
KORDATC

United Airlines 777 ETOPS Cert.

Recommended Posts

Does anyone know what ETOPS category United's fleet of 777s are authorized to fly, such as 120, 180, etc.? 

 

Thanks,

Rob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

As a former COA-UAL International dispatcher and ATC representative - yes, 180, the last I heard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically, for most operations under FAA Part 121 you will find that 180 minutes is the baseline limit. An operator can go to 207 and 240 minutes in very specific operations. 

 

207 minutes can be done for parts of Norther Pacific operations. 

 

240 minutes can be in certain areas below the equator. 

 

Beyond 240 minutes can be done under even more specific circumstances, such as West Coast of United States to Australia, New Zealand, Polynesia, and other geographically relevant locations. 240+ minutes also comes with a bunch of new operational limitations and currency requirements.

 

If UA does have the 180 minute rule (which I am sure they do), then in some situations they are allowed to extend past it. 

 

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=dc4a5c12b89bc362ee3d8c509c03a537&node=14:3.0.1.1.7.30.3.2.22&rgn=div9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be great if we could start a topic with a database of airline specifc info, provided it isn´t priviledged material that would be illegal to share. I´d love to know certain numbers from various operators such as:

1. ETOPS certifications

2. cost index

3. typical Accel height and thrust reduction height

4. list of preferred alternates in ETOPS flights

 

That would truly add to realism in my opinion. But I really don´t know if thi wouldn´t be considered sharing priviledged information 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's British Airways ETOPs alternates and preferred alternate airports. (747-777)

Primary Preferred (P1)

EGPF, EGPH, EGCC, EGLL, EGKK, LFPG, LEMD, LPPT. There all the European alternates

 

KBOS, KJFK, KPHL, KBWI, KIAD, CYUL, KATL, KMCO, KFLL, KMIA. East Coast United States

 

CYYZ, KDTW, KORD, KDFW, KIAH, KDEN. Central United States

 

CYYC, CYVR, KSEA, KSFO, KLAX, KLAS, KSAN, KPHX. West Coast United States

 

Primary Alternates, over Atlantic and Northern Canada.

EINN, BIKF, BGSF, CYFB, CYYR, CYQX, CYYT, CYJT.

CYYQ, CYWG, CYEG.

All of those airports are preferred diversion airports and there a ton more for emergency and even secondary which I'm not going to list. Hope this helps anyone.

Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


1. ETOPS certifications
2. cost index
3. typical Accel height and thrust reduction height
4. list of preferred alternates in ETOPS flights

 

A lot more complex than that.

1. Even within airlines, this can vary by tail number - different planes can be maintained to different standards.  Some UAL 73s are ETOPS, others aren't.  Same goes for many other operators.  Maintaining planes to ETOPS standards costs a pretty chunk of change.  This is why some airlines don't have ETOPS capable aircraft, even though the aircraft itself is eligible.

2. This varies.  Huge simism that this is static.  It varies, and varies, and varies.  Simmers need to start writing that over and over on whiteboards (chalkboards?!?) as penance for perpetuating this "same CI" principle...  The whole purpose of CI is to adjust for cost factors on routes.  (See here.)

3. Can vary by field, though different ops have defaults.  You might be able to track this down.

4. Probably going to be nearly impossible to reliably find, but like 3, you might be able to find someone to put it out there.  Unlikely, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot more complex than that.

1. Even within airlines, this can vary by tail number - different planes can be maintained to different standards.  Some UAL 73s are ETOPS, others aren't.  Same goes for many other operators.  Maintaining planes to ETOPS standards costs a pretty chunk of change.  This is why some airlines don't have ETOPS capable aircraft, even though the aircraft itself is eligible.

2. This varies.  Huge simism that this is static.  It varies, and varies, and varies.  Simmers need to start writing that over and over on whiteboards (chalkboards?!?) as penance for perpetuating this "same CI" principle...  The whole purpose of CI is to adjust for cost factors on routes.  (See here.)

3. Can vary by field, though different ops have defaults.  You might be able to track this down.

4. Probably going to be nearly impossible to reliably find, but like 3, you might be able to find someone to put it out there.  Unlikely, though.

 

You forgot to mention you have produced some videos on the topic on your channel :-) Worth checking out

 

Michael Moe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi.

 

Non ETOPS route if at all possible, then 120 rule. If 120 rule does not work, then 138 mins. If 138 mins does not work then 180 mins is used. ETOPS 207 mins very rare and only allowed on North Pacific routes. 

 

Thx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot more complex than that.

1. Even within airlines, this can vary by tail number - different planes can be maintained to different standards.  Some UAL 73s are ETOPS, others aren't.  Same goes for many other operators.  Maintaining planes to ETOPS standards costs a pretty chunk of change.  This is why some airlines don't have ETOPS capable aircraft, even though the aircraft itself is eligible.

2. This varies.  Huge simism that this is static.  It varies, and varies, and varies.  Simmers need to start writing that over and over on whiteboards (chalkboards?!?) as penance for perpetuating this "same CI" principle...  The whole purpose of CI is to adjust for cost factors on routes.  (See here.)

3. Can vary by field, though different ops have defaults.  You might be able to track this down.

4. Probably going to be nearly impossible to reliably find, but like 3, you might be able to find someone to put it out there.  Unlikely, though.

 

Hello, 

 

Your  assumption that because I simply wrote the words "cost index" means I don't know about their variable nature is incorrect. I was not aware most simmers thought this was a fixed magical number as you profess. And I'm sure there's a more elegant and lss rude way of getting this message across than what you suggest.

 

Perhaps this could've been avoided had I written "cost index ranges", and for that I apologize. But I generally try to avoid wordiness in my posts to keep things simple and to the point, and I thought that most people would infer that what I'm looking for is a realistic RANGE of numbers to work with. For example, suppose that for this summer on East-bound North Atlantic flights BA will issue a CI of anywhere between 98-110 for their B772 fleet. I'd rather know that the number is somewhere in there than to arbitrarily input any value off the top of my head; say, 20 or 180. That being said, I know of at least two airlines that kept pretty much the same cost index for at least an entire year on their 738 and 772 fleet. 

 

Thank you for your input though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


Your  assumption that because I simply wrote the words "cost index" means I don't know about their variable nature is incorrect. I was not aware most simmers thought this was a fixed magical number as you profess. And I'm sure there's a more elegant and lss rude way of getting this message across than what you suggest.

 

There's always a "less rude" way for me to say things, but it usually requires extra effort that I'm not willing to expend (tried being nice recently and ended up getting more negative reactions).  You could just look at it as simple feedback.  If you know that you don't think it's a set value, note that the comment isn't aimed at you and move on instead of getting upset about it.

 

Regardless, it's an issue, and it's a rather constant issue, so I'm not sure how you've missed it until now.  Still, having a database of CIs is still really tough for most operators, since they use the concept for what it was designed for: adjusting performance to meet issues of cost.  I get what you're going for, but my opinion is that it would only serve to push the idea that it's a set (or set range) of values.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


And I'm sure there's a more elegant and lss rude way of getting this message across than what you suggest.
Wow! How was he even rude?! If you already know the information he said then move on. There are other people that could read his post and learn from it, you know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow! How was he even rude?! If you already know the information he said then move on. There are other people that could read his post and learn from it, you know?

 

I can see how it could come across as rude.  It wasn't intended to be, but I know I can come across as gruff...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see how it could come across as rude.  It wasn't intended to be, but I know I can come across as gruff...

 

 

Don't sweat it Kyle, I'm not one to waste one minute of my time with forum quarrels. In retrospect you weren't rude at all. I respect your strong opinions and your way to express them; and I've learnt much from you as a matter of fact. I would have put things differently but maybe that's just a cultural thing. The last thing I want to be is a whiny forum baby. I'd like to think I have thicker skin than that. Thanks for the answers and sorry to the OP for hijacking the thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot more complex than that.

1. Even within airlines, this can vary by tail number - different planes can be maintained to different standards. Some UAL 73s are ETOPS, others aren't. Same goes for many other operators. Maintaining planes to ETOPS standards costs a pretty chunk of change. This is why some airlines don't have ETOPS capable aircraft, even though the aircraft itself is eligible.

2. This varies. Huge simism that this is static. It varies, and varies, and varies. Simmers need to start writing that over and over on whiteboards (chalkboards?!?) as penance for perpetuating this "same CI" principle... The whole purpose of CI is to adjust for cost factors on routes. (See here.)

3. Can vary by field, though different ops have defaults. You might be able to track this down.

4. Probably going to be nearly impossible to reliably find, but like 3, you might be able to find someone to put it out there. Unlikely, though.

This is all true... Some airlines just can't afford to even start an ETOPS program. Airlines have to also prove MX reliability over a certain amount of time on the aircraft... Then crews and dispatchers need to be trained, and this is just a small piece of the pie.

Just as Kyle said here CI's change all the time... It's a variable number that takes a ton of things into account, even crew pay and rest. Some airlines run CI 100 on all short flights, and some never have the same. It's really a number that's not very trackable.

 

A big part of ETOPS really just comes down to $.

 

Paul M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow! How was he even rude?! If you already know the information he said then move on. There are other people that could read his post and learn from it, you know?

 

They are called "Bandwidth Vampires". Some people just like to say stuff, like me.  :spiteful:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this