Proposed Advisory Circular No. 120-42B, Extended Operations (ETOPS) and Polar Operations, 53044-53077 [07-4473]

Agencies

• Federal Aviation Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 179 (Monday, September 17, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53044-53077]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-4473]



[[Page 53043]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part V





Department of Transportation





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



Federal Aviation Administration



-----------------------------------------------------------------------



Proposed Advisory Circular No. 120-42B, Extended Operations (ETOPS) and 
Polar Operations; Notice Proposed Advisory Circular No. 135-42, 
Extended Operations (ETOPS) and Operations in the North Polar Area; 
Notice

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 179 / Monday, September 17, 2007 / 
Notices

[[Page 53044]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket Number FAA-2002-6717]


Proposed Advisory Circular No. 120-42B, Extended Operations 
(ETOPS) and Polar Operations

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of availability of a proposed advisory circular and 
request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of and requests 
comments on a proposed Advisory Circular (AC): AC No. 120-42B, Extended 
Operations (ETOPS) and Polar Operations. Also in this Federal Register, 
the FAA publishes draft AC No. 135-42, Extended Operations (ETOPS) and 
Operations in the North Polar Area, for public comment.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 17, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Send all comments on the proposed AC to Docket Number FAA-
2002-6717, using any of the following methods:
     DOT Docket Web site: Go to https://dms.dot.gov and follow 
the instructions for sending your comments electronically.
     Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to https://
www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your 
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to the Docket Management Facility; 
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West 
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Fax: Fax comments to the Docket Management Facility at 
202-493-2251.
     Hand Delivery: Bring comments to the Docket Management 
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Ryan, Air Transportation Division 
(AFS-220), Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue 
SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-7493, e-mail 
Jim.Ryan@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44703.

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to submit comments on the proposed 
AC. Commenters must identify AC No. 120-42B and submit comments to the 
address specified under ADDRESSES. All communications received on or 
before the closing date for comments will be considered by the FAA 
before issuing the final AC.
    An electronic copy of the proposed AC, which are published in full 
here, may be obtained by accessing the FAA's web page at--https://
www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/recently_published/.
    The Extended Operations (ETOPS) final rule was published in the 
Federal Register on January 16, 2007. This final rule applies to air 
carrier (part 121), commuter, and on-demand (part 135) turbine powered 
multi-engine airplanes used in extended-range operations. All-cargo 
operations in airplanes with more than two engines were exempted from 
most of the rule. It established regulations governing the design, 
operation and maintenance of certain airplanes operated on flights that 
fly long distances from an adequate airport. This advisory circular 
provides further guidance for these extended operations to those 
conducting operations under 14 CFR part 121. It also further clarifies 
the rule's requirements for Polar operations.

    Issued in Washington, DC on August 27, 2007.
James J. Ballough,
Director, Flight Standards Service.

Draft Advisory Circular 120-42B, Extended Operations (ETOPS) and Polar 
Operations

Contents

Paragraph

Chapter 1. General
    100. Applicability
    101. Cancellations
    102. Related Regulations
Chapter 2. Background on ETOPS
    200. ETOPS Regulatory Requirements
    201. Evolution of ETOPS
    202. ETOPS Applicability to All Passenger-Carrying Airplanes 
Flown in Long-Range Operations
    203. ``Extended Operations''
    204. Preclude and Protect
    205. ETOPS Areas of Operation
    206. ETOPS Alternate Requirements
    207. ETOPS In-Service Experience Requirements
    208. Operational Reliability and Systems Suitability 
Requirements
Chapter 3. Requirements for ETOPS Authorization
    300. ETOPS Requirements
    301. Maintenance Requirements for Two-Engine ETOPS Authorization
    302. ETOPS Maintenance Training Requirements
    303. ETOPS Flight Operations Requirements
    304. Flight Operations Training Requirements
Chapter 4. Applications To Conduct ETOPS
    400. ETOPS Qualifications
    401. Application for ETOPS Authorization
    402. ETOPS Authorities
    403. ETOPS Authorization Requirements
    404. Validation Flight(s)
    405. Required Demonstration on a Validation Flight
Chapter 5. FAA ETOPS Approval
    500. Final ETOPS Operating Authority
    501. ETOPS OpSpecs
    502. Changes to Approved ETOPS Operations, Maintenance and 
Training Procedures
    503. Processes after Receiving ETOPS Authority
Chapter 6. Polar Operations
    600. Background
    601. Definition
    602. Applicability
    603. Polar Requirements
    604. Validation before Approval
    605. FAA Polar Area Approval
Appendix 1. Definitions
Appendix 2. ETOPS Approvals
Appendix 3. ETOPS Approval Methods

Chapter 1. General

    100. Applicability. This AC concerns those certificate holders 
applying for approval to conduct ETOPS under Sec.  121.161, as well as 
those certificate holders applying for approval to conduct flights 
where a portion of which traverse either the North or South Polar 
Areas, as defined in part 121, Sec.  121.7. This AC also provides 
guidance in resolving operational issues to certificate holders 
currently conducting such operations.
    101. Cancellations. The following AC's and policy letters are 
cancelled:
     AC 120-42A, Extended Range Operation with Two-Engine 
Airplanes, dated December 30, 1988;
     ETOPS Policy Letter (EPL) 95-1, 138-Minute ETOPS 
Operational Approval Criteria, dated December 19, 1994;
     EPL 20-1, 207-Minute ETOPS Operational Approval Criteria, 
dated March 21, 2000; and
     FAA Policy Letter, Guidance for Polar Operations, dated 
March 5, 2001.
    102. Related Regulations. 14 CFR part 21, Sec.  21.4; part 25, 
Sec.  25.1535; part 121, Sec. Sec.  121.7, 121.97, 121.99, 121.106, 
121.135, 121.161, 121.162, 121.191, 121.197, 121.374, 121.410, 121.415, 
121.565, 121.624, 121.625, 121.631, 121.633, 121.646, 121.687, 121.689, 
121.703, 121.704, and 121.705; and part 121, appendix P (https://
www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr).

Chapter 2. Background on ETOPS

    200. ETOPS Regulatory Requirements.
    a. All two-engine airplanes and three- and four-engine passenger-
carrying airplanes operated under part 121 are required to comply with 
Sec.  121.161. This regulation imposes special requirements

[[Page 53045]]

for extended operations (ETOPS) for these airplanes. These operations 
are defined as:
    (1) Two-Engine Airplanes. These are flights whose planned routing 
contains a point farther than 60 minutes flying time from an adequate 
airport at an approved one-engine-inoperative cruise speed in still 
air.
    (2) Passenger-Carrying Airplanes with More Than Two Engines. These 
are flights whose planned routing contains a point farther than 180 
minutes flying time from an adequate airport at an approved one-engine-
inoperative cruise speed in still air.
    b. To conduct ETOPS, the specified airplane-engine combination must 
be certificated to the airworthiness standards of transport-category 
airplanes and be approved for ETOPS. (Airplane certification guidance 
for ETOPS can be found in Sec.  121.162 and Sec.  25.1535, as well as 
AC 25.1535-1. As with all other operations, a certificate holder 
requesting any route approval must first show that it is able to 
satisfactorily conduct operations between each required airport as 
defined for that route or route segment, and any required en route 
alternate airport. Certificate holders must show that the facilities 
and services specified in Sec. Sec.  121.97 through 121.107 (domestic 
and flag operations) and Sec. Sec.  121.113 through 121.127 
(supplemental and commercial operations) are available and adequate for 
the proposed operation. In addition, the certificate holder must be 
approved for ETOPS under part 121. This AC provides the additional 
guidance for certificate holder approval for ETOPS.
    201. Evolution of ETOPS.
    a. Section 121.161 has an extensive historical basis, which began 
as early as 1936. Before obtaining approval for operation in 1936, an 
applicant operating an airplane with two piston engines was required to 
show that intermediate fields available for safe takeoffs and landings 
were located at least at 100-mile intervals along the proposed route. 
Previously, the rule imposed restrictions only on two-engine airplanes 
based on the lack of satisfactory engine reliability in the operation. 
In response to improvements in engine design and reliability, and 
responding to the needs of industry, the FAA has provided guidance for 
deviations from the rule that have allowed two-engine operations to 
expand incrementally beyond the initial 60-minute restriction. 
Currently, engine reliability has improved to a level where the safety 
of the operations is not impacted so much by the number of engines, but 
by other factors that affect operations of all airplanes whose routings 
take them great distances from adequate airports. Throughout the 
evolution of the current Sec.  121.161, the following factors have 
remained constant:
    (1) The rule has always applied to all areas of operation, and has 
not been limited to overwater operations.
    (2) Any additional restrictions imposed or, alternatively, any 
deviations granted to operate in excess of the basic requirements, were 
based on a finding by the Administrator that adequate safety would be 
provided in the proposed operation and current levels of safety would 
be maintained when all factors were considered. This finding was never 
limited to engine reliability alone.
    (3) The airports used in meeting the provisions of the rule must be 
adequate for the airplane used (that is, available for safe landings 
and takeoff with the weights authorized).
    (4) Adequate levels of safety within the operation are to be 
maintained. Operations over increasingly remote areas and the 
possibility of increased diversion lengths have a potentially negative 
impact on the safety of the diversion, and thus the operation as a 
whole. Additional regulatory requirements are intended to ensure that 
this potential increase in risk is mitigated and that adequate levels 
of safety within operations are retained.
    (5) When considering the impact of operating at greater distances 
from airports, the certificate holder must show that the operation can 
be conducted at a level of reliability that maintains an acceptable 
level of risk.
    b. In June of 1985, responding to the industry's desire to take 
advantage of the increased reliability and capabilities of two-engine 
airplanes, the FAA issued AC 120-42. This AC provided guidance on one 
means of obtaining deviation authority from Sec.  121.161 to allow two 
engine airplanes to operate on routes up to 120 minutes from an 
adequate airport after demonstration of specific levels of in-service 
experience and systems reliability. The FAA amended this AC in 1988 (AC 
120-42A) to permit two-engine airplanes to operate up to 180 minutes 
from an adequate airport. These ACs introduced the term ``ETOPS'' for 
those specific extended operations and addressed airplane and engine 
design aspects, maintenance programs, and operations. Both of these ACs 
encompassed the following precepts:
    (1) Reliance on a two-step approval that included type design of 
the airplane-engine combination and approval of the certificate 
holder's operation.
    (2) Risk, as measured by diversion length, is mitigated by 
application of regulations and guidance reflecting current best 
practices that address the type certification of the ETOPS airplane and 
its systems as well as the operational environment of such operations.
    (3) ETOPS can be managed successfully, and the level of safety can 
be maintained, by up-to-date regulations and guidance that articulate 
quantifiable standards of reliability and experience.
    c. The original guidance for extended-range operations with two-
engine airplanes in AC 120-42 allowed an increase of up to 15 percent 
to the maximum diversion time of 120 minutes. This provision was 
eliminated with the release of the guidance in AC 120-42A, providing 
for operations up to 180 minutes. Recognizing a need for ETOPS 
diversion authority between 120 and 180 minutes, the FAA reinstated the 
138-minute provision by issuing EPL 95 1 in 1994. In March of 2000, at 
the request of the industry, the FAA issued ETOPS Policy Letter (EPL) 
20-1, 207 Minute ETOPS Operation Approval Criteria. This document 
provided a similar 15 percent increase in the 180-minute maximum 
diversion time and gave limited relief to ETOPS certificate holders in 
the specific case of North Pacific Operations.
    d. Since the advent of the original Sec.  121.161, extended two-
engine airplane operations have been governed by this rule, and the 
process of evolving and progressive guidance has reflected the 
successful and ever-increasing experience of the industry. As capable 
as this body of guidance has been in the past, it became increasingly 
clear that a need existed to codify all the disparate documents into a 
single body of rules, and to update the existing rules to reflect all 
the industry improvements such progress has used as its basis. 
Consequently Sec.  121.161 was revised to expand two-engine operational 
authority under successful ETOPS processes and require certain 
operations of all passenger-carrying part 121 airplanes to adopt ETOPS 
requirements. This AC reflects current Sec.  121.161 regulatory 
requirements.
    202. ETOPS Applicability to All Passenger-Carrying Airplanes Flown 
in Long-Range Operations.
    a. AC 120-42 in 1985, and AC 120-42A in 1988, recognized the 
increasing reliability of turbojet engines and helped to establish type 
design and operational practices for safe and reliable long-range 
operations with two-engine airplanes. As the technology and reliability 
of two-engine airplanes continued to improve, due in large

[[Page 53046]]

measure to the requirements of these documents, such operations became 
compatible with those long-range operations typically associated with 
three- and four-engine airplanes. At the same time this technology 
brought two-engine airplanes to the arena of long-range operations, the 
infrastructure to support such operations was changing. Political and 
funding priorities forced the closure or reduction in basic services of 
a number of airports, military and civilian, in remote areas that 
historically had been used as diversion airports for routes over 
oceanic and/or desolate land areas. The increasing use of polar 
flights, while creating economic benefits, has also brought new 
challenges to the operation. The risks associated with these areas' 
remoteness, harsh climate and terrain, and their unique operational 
issues, needed to be addressed to maintain an equivalent level of 
safety in the operation.
    b. These issues began to significantly impact the viability of all 
long-range two-engine airplane operations under current regulations, 
and likewise began to erode the basic safety net that long-range 
operations in three- and four-engine airplanes had relied on. Because 
of these pressures and the increasing commonality of all long-range 
operations, the data began to show that ETOPS requirements and 
processes are generally applicable to all long-range passenger-carrying 
operations, including those by three- and four-engine airplanes, and 
would improve the safety and viability of such operations. All long-
range passenger-carrying airplanes, regardless of the number of 
engines, needed a viable diversion airport in the case of onboard fire, 
medical emergency, or catastrophic decompression. Ensuring availability 
of en route alternate airports, adequate fire fighting coverage at 
these airports, and fuel planning to account for depressurization are 
sound operational practices for all airplanes, including three- and 
four-engine airplanes. Likewise, planning for the maximum allowable 
diversion and worst-case scenarios should account for all airplane 
time-critical systems.
    c. Unlike the ETOPS guidance provided for two-engine airplanes, 
there has been no regulatory framework governing the long-range 
operations of three- and four-engine airplanes.
    For example, in emergencies such as loss of cabin pressure, current 
regulations require adequate oxygen supplies but do not require the 
operator to consider the amount of extra fuel necessary to reach a 
diversion airport.
    (1) An analysis of operational data shows that between 1980 and 
2000, 33 of the 73 cruise depressurization events on one manufacturer's 
airplanes occurred on airplanes with more than two engines.
    (2) A study conducted by this manufacturer using a modern four-
engine aircraft carrying normal route planning fuel reserves raises 
issues about the adequacy of the current fuel planning requirements in 
the event of a diversion.
    d. Operational data shows that the diversion rate for all airplane-
related and non-airplane-related causes are comparable between two-
engine airplanes and airplanes with more than two engines. 
Consequently, the FAA has found that there is a need for all passenger 
carrying operations beyond 180 minutes from an adequate airport to 
adopt many of the ETOPS requirements that have been based on sound 
safety principles and successfully proven over many years of 
operations. Accordingly, the FAA revised Sec.  121.161 to include 
passenger-carrying airplanes with more than two engines in these long-
range operations.
    203. ``Extended Operations.''
    a. Since 1985, the acronym, ETOPS, has been defined as ``extended 
twin-engine operations'' and has been limited to part 121 airplanes 
with only two engines. Current regulations have extended these 
applications to all passenger-carrying airplanes operating in both 14 
CFR parts 121 and 135, and the acronym has now been redefined to mean 
``extended operations.'' This is to acknowledge the similarity of 
certain long-range passenger-carrying operations of all airplanes 
operating today, and the common issues that impact such operations.
    b. Since 1988, the ETOPS limit for two-engine airplanes has been 
180 minutes from an adequate airport at an approved one-engine-
inoperative cruise speed under standard conditions in still air 
(excluding the limited authority in the North Pacific given under EPL 
20-1, 207-Minute ETOPS Operational Approval Criteria, dated March 21, 
2000). Service experience has shown that although limited, this 
authority has satisfactorily supported the vast majority of the world's 
current aviation routes.
    c. Those areas not supported within 180-minute diversion authority 
tend to be routes over remote areas of the world that are uniquely 
challenging to the operation. These areas include the South Polar 
Region, a small section in the South Pacific, the southern South 
Atlantic Ocean between South America and Africa, the southern Indian 
Ocean and the North Polar area under certain winter weather conditions. 
The additional operational challenges of these routes are equally 
demanding of all airplanes, regardless of the number of engines, and 
include such issues as extremes in terrain and meteorology, as well as 
limited navigation and communications infrastructure. Support of a 
necessary diversion and subsequent recovery in such areas demands added 
training, expertise, and dedication from all certificate holders. The 
development of ETOPS requirements is intended to address all these 
issues.
    d. Even though for continuity with current two-engine ETOPS the 
existing acronym ETOPS is retained, the ETOPS acronym has been re-
defined. ETOPS has been expanded to include all passenger-carrying 
airplane operations where a proposed flight plan includes any point 
that is greater than 180 minutes from an adequate airport (at an 
approved one-engine-inoperative cruise speed under standard conditions 
in still air).
    204. Preclude and Protect.
    a. The whole premise of ETOPS has been to preclude a diversion and, 
if it were to occur, to have programs in place to protect the 
diversion. Under this concept, propulsion systems are designed and 
tested to ensure an acceptable level of in-flight shutdowns (IFSD), and 
other airplane systems are designed and tested to ensure their 
reliability. Two-engine airplane maintenance practices are enhanced to 
better maintain and monitor the condition of the engines and systems 
significant to ETOPS. The design of these enhanced practices has been a 
major factor in the joint development of the FAA's and industry's 
aggressive steps to develop a foundation to resolve problems with 
airplane systems and engines in order to minimize the potential for 
procedural and human errors, thereby precluding a diversion.
    b. However, despite the best design, testing, and maintenance 
practices, situations occur that may require an airplane to divert. 
Regardless of whether the diversion is for technical (airplane system- 
or engine-related) or non-technical reasons, the certificate holder 
must have a flight operations plan to protect that diversion. For 
example, such a plan must include ensuring that pilots are 
knowledgeable about diversion airport alternates and weather conditions 
(Sec.  121.631), have the ability to communicate with the certificate 
holder's dispatch office and air traffic control (Sec. Sec.  121.99 and 
121.122), and have sufficient fuel to divert to the alternate (Sec.  
121.646). Under the ``preclude and protect'' concept, various failure 
scenarios need to be considered. For example, during the design of the

[[Page 53047]]

airplane, time-limited systems such as cargo compartment fire 
suppression/containment capability are considered. Fuel planning must 
account for the possibility of decompression or the failure of an 
engine with considerations for in-flight icing conditions. Best options 
under these scenarios should be provided to the pilot before and during 
the flight.
    c. This philosophy has been critical to the success of two-engine 
ETOPS in the past and has been applied to these airplanes in operations 
beyond 60 minutes from an adequate airport. This application is based 
on the requirements of Sec.  121.161 and the engine inoperative 
diversion requirements of Sec.  121.565. In-service data shows that all 
airplanes, regardless of the number of engines, divert from time to 
time for various causes. All passenger-carrying operations conducted 
where there are a limited number of en route airports, where the 
support infrastructure is marginal, or where there are challenging 
weather conditions should adopt many of the same elements of the same 
preclude and protect concept. If certificate holders plan to operate 
passenger-carrying airplanes with more than two engines in areas where 
en route airports are farther away than 180 minutes, these operations 
are also required to meet certain the standards defined under ETOPS to 
ensure that all efforts are made to preclude a diversion, and if a 
diversion does occur, that procedures are in place to protect that 
diversion.
    205. ETOPS Areas of Operation.
    a. ETOPS areas of operation are defined by Sec.  121.7 to be areas 
beyond a certain distance from adequate airports measured by an 
airplanes one-engine inoperative cruise speed under standard conditions 
in still air. Because of the impact such distances might have on the 
diversion time of an airplane, regulatory guidance has been established 
for the planning, operational, and equipage requirements for such 
operations. A certificate holder must apply to the FAA for approval to 
operate in an ETOPS area using the methodologies in this AC and is 
granted ETOPS authority for a specific ETOPS area of operations in 
their operations specifications.
    b. Most ETOPS authorities for two-engine ETOPS beyond 180 minutes 
are limited to a specific geographical region. Historically, ETOPS 
authorities for two-engine airplanes up to 180 minutes were developed 
based on a specific need in a particular operating area. Limiting 
expanded ETOPS authority beyond 180 minutes (for two-engine airplanes) 
has been extended and serves several purposes.
    (1) The primary importance is the preclusion of an arbitrary use of 
diversion authority beyond that necessary to complete the operation 
safely and efficiently. Because it is accepted that increased diversion 
times potentially increase the risk of the operation a certificate 
holder must make every effort to plan ETOPS with a maximum diversion 
distance of 180 minutes or less, if possible.
    (2) It should be a goal of all two-engine airplane flight planning 
to operate to the shortest diversion time that provides the widest 
range of options in the event of a diversion while recognizing the 
economic benefits of a more direct route and the safety benefits of 
diverting to an airport that is well equipped. Tying increased 
diversion authority to specific areas of operation accomplishes this 
goal while sufficiently addressing the operational needs of the 
industry.
    (3) Likewise, this focus on specific needs and areas of operation 
does not add impetus to any perceived rationale for further degradation 
in the availability or capabilities of en route alternates in remote 
areas of the world. Although the industry has no direct authority to 
affect the actions of sovereign nations, it is reasonable to base 
operations on the value of en route alternate availability at 
reasonable diversion distances.
    (4) In consideration of the successful history of three- and four-
engine airplane operations and the reliability and redundancy of 
current engines used in this operation, ETOPS for these airplanes does 
not have similar restrictions and ETOPS authorities are not limited to 
geographic areas. However, like twin-engine operators, the three- and 
four-engine operator is required to designate the nearest available 
ETOPS alternate along the planned route of flight and must remain 
within a 240 minute diversion time if possible.
    c. In its application for ETOPS authority, the certificate holder 
will typically request a specific ETOPS area of operation based on an 
analysis of proposed routings and the availability of airports 
sufficient to support the operational requirements of the ETOPS 
regulations. Because the operating rules distinguish between ETOPS up 
to 180 minutes, and ETOPS beyond 180 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 Sec.  121.646(b) and must 
therefore account for wind. However, the flight planning limitations of 
Sec.  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 
Sec.  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 aircraft flight manual 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

[[Page 53048]]

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 Sec.  121.633(b) are met at the equal-
time points between ETOPS alternates determined by the most limiting en 
route fuel supply requirements of Sec.  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.
    (c) Once the required fire suppression systems are installed (no 
later than February 15, 2013) the certificate holder must follow the 
flight planning limitations of Sec.  121.633(b)(1). As required by 
Sec.  121.162(d), for airplanes with more than 2 engines manufactured 
on or after February 17, 2015, the Configuration, Maintenance and 
Procedures (CMP) document for that model will list the airplane's most 
limiting ETOPS Significant System time issued in accordance with Sec.  
25.3(c). The Certificate holder operating an airplane-engine 
combination with more than two engines is required to comply with Sec.  
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 Sec.  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 Sec.  121.625 and as specified in Chapter 3, 
paragraph 303c(5) of this AC and in the certificate holder's operations 
specifications (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., Sec. Sec.  121.617, 121.621, and 121.623).
    c. While en route, the forecast weather for designated ETOPS 
alternates must remain at or above operating minima. This provides 
ETOPS flights with the ability to resolve all diversion 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

[[Page 53049]]

considered (Sec.  121.633). The certificate holder must also have an 
established program that monitors the reliability of systems 
significant to ETOPS (Sec.  121.374).
    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 must 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 (Sec.  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.

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 operations specifications 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 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 Sec.  
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 operations specifications. 
The certificate holder and its certificate holding district office 
(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 document need 
not be inclusive but should, at least, reference the maintenance 
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 Predeparture 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. 
One certificate holder may have a one page PDSC while other certificate 
holders, using the same airplane-engine combination, may have six or 
more pages of items in their PDSCs. 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. 
For example, proper servicing of fluids, such as engine, APU, generator 
systems, and hydraulic systems is a vital ingredient to successful 
ETOPS operations. Current ETOPS operations have had incidents resulting 
from

[[Page 53050]]

improper fluid servicing that have 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 clearly must 
identify the ETOPS related tasks on their PDSC, because non-ETOPS 
qualified maintenance personnel may accomplish the non-ETOPS tasks. An 
ETOPS-qualified maintenance individual must complete all ETOPS-related 
tasks and an ETOPS-qualified maintenance individual, with an airframe 
and powerplant rating, must certify the entire check. When outside the 
United States, if an individual with an airframe and powerplant rating 
is not available, then a trained individual employed by an FAA 
certificated repair station, contracted by the certificate holder must 
certify the entire check. This 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.
    (4) 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 a discrepancy 
that requires maintenance intervention, another PDSC is required.
    (5) 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.
    (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 of both Satellite Communication 
(SATCOM) 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. Another example is if both of the SATCOM systems 
require maintenance at the same time during a turnaround flight. 
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, 
or
    (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.
    (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, and provide related OJT, regardless of whether one 
individual or multiple individuals perform the tasks.
    e. Verification Program.

[[Page 53051]]

    (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 Instructions for 
Continued Airworthiness (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. Ground maintenance personnel 
must 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.
    f. Task Identification.
    (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 task must be accomplished 
by ETOPS-qualified personnel.
    (3) In the event that maintenance is performed on an ETOPS airplane 
by personnel who are not ETOPS trained, then the actions must be 
verified per the certificate holder's ETOPS verification program.
    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 critical 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 a monthly ETOPS reliability report to 
its CHDO.
    (2) In keeping with the reporting requirements in Sec.  121.703, 
the certificate holder must report the following items 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 airplane or engine system.
    (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 Sec.  121.703(e).
    (4) The certificate holder must conduct an investigation into the 
cause of the occurrence of any event listed in Sec.  121.703 and Sec.  
121.374(h)(1) in conjunction with manufacturers and submit its findings 
to its CHDO. 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.

[[Page 53052]]



                                            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 also must investigate any indication of 
a high IFSD rate; however, it must 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.
    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. Engine limit margins should 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 diver