The FAA’s NPRM (notice of proposed rulemaking) that would extend ETOPS requirements to Part 135 operators and to Part 121 aircraft with more than two engines has substantial problems – and judging from the comments coming into the FAA so far – numerous critics as well.

The FAA issued its ETOPS NPRM because it wishes to codify within one set of new regulations what has become generally accepted as good operating practices for all commercial operations, regardless of the number of engines or the size of the airplane. Currently, three-and-four engine aircraft aren’t subject to what were ETOPS (extended twin-engine operations) procedures.

The NPRM is based largely on recommendations made by the ARAC (Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee), which is a government-industry body that advises the agency on proposed rules, policy and international standards.

A sizable number of operators are critical of certain parts of the FAA’s proposal, especially the inclusion of aircraft with more than two engines, and the lack of logical differentials when including Part 135 operators.

KLM bluntly says there is no justification for additional rules for three-and-four engine aircraft, since there hasn’t been any accident or incident that shows why these rules are necessary. Qantas was even blunter, saying: “Many of the ARAC recommendations which were adopted by the FAA are not based on safety or science…. [And] many of the recommendations are fundamentally flawed.” And FedEx commented: “If three and four engine aircraft are required to be operated pursuant to ETOPS rules, the implications to FedEx will be extreme.”

These comments echo those made by several other parties who complain that the NPRM isn’t well thought through. Qantas summarized this frustration by writing: “It appears that many of the proposed regulations have been based on the SLAGIATT (seems-like-a-good idea-at-the-time) policy.”

Part 135 Operators

Business jet operators also find some provisions of the NPRM unrealistic, given the proven reliability of modern aircraft and powerplants. One example is putting 135 operators in the same “box” of 121 operators by forcing 135s to use 180 and 240 minute time-to-alternate restrictions. NetJets notes that while this is acceptable to airlines that fly predictive and repetitive routes, 135 operators fly routes that are seldom repeatable. Why not allow 135 operators to continue to use the “best practice” of calculating and adhering to the ETP (equal time point), NetJet asks.

Safety and Economic Justification

Many comments are particularly critical of the FAA’s economic analysis.

FedEx called the FAA's projected $207 million savings for three- and four-engine operators during a 10-year period "incredible and ludicrous," adding that it currently can fly "any route in the world with three- and four-engine aircraft without the costs associated with ETOPS." KLM said the cost savings claimed by the NRPM for three-and-four-engine operations is unrealistic, and UPS observed that the NPRM doesn’t “appear to articulate a justification for applying current ETOPS rules…on three-and four-engine aircraft.” The NBAA stated: “The FAA’s cost/benefit calculations [relating to the NPRM] are based on false assumptions. NBAA has been unable to identify any economic benefit to Part 135 operators.”

Qantas, in particular, attacked the NPRM’s safety rationale, noting that since the introduction of ETOPS rules about 20 years ago, there has been a reduction in system-related diversions, due largely to better maintenance procedures, and a significant improvement in system reliability – particularly powerplant reliability. The Australian international airline goes on to note that over the past twenty years, almost no system-related diversions would have been prevented by ETOPS rules, because they were caused by other reasons such as human error.

FedEx wants proof. It asks what accidents and fatalities have occurred only because a three-or-four-engine air transport wasn’t protected by these proposed ETOPS rules? There have been multiple engine-failures on these aircraft types due to fuel exhaustion, volcanic ash ingestion and improper maintenance, but this proposal would have neither prevented them from occurring nor mitigated their seriousness, FedEx asserts.

NBAA, pointing to the “excellent safety record” of 135 operators, complains that the “FAA has not provided any safety or efficiency rationale for implementing this rule.”

Wingman believes that the ARAC exercise shows the difficulty of trying to find universal rules to govern every possible scenario in a complex world. This attempt to codify all possible contingencies has become a monster, notwithstanding a number of good recommendations made by the group and generally accepted by industry.

The NPRM also needs considerable work in its safety and economic justification. First, it needs to eliminate benefits from its analysis that clearly aren’t available.

Second, safety regulators need to recognize that extremely small or, hypothetical marginal increases in safety will be logically challenged if they require large marginal increases in cost. In the case of some operators affected by this NRPM, the argument can be made that an increase in safety may even be nonexistent. And of course these marginal ratios are constantly being affected by technological advances: More reliable engines, better communications, improved navigation, and enhanced situational awareness of changing conditions are all examples of this.

Furthermore, at any given point in time, the financial resources operators can apply to safety improvements are limited. Money spent for ETOPS upgrades, might not be spent for safety issues that are more urgent. In this context, the FAA must ask itself this basic question: Can the increase in safety resulting from each element of this NRPM be justified on the basis that the marginal cost of that improvement subtracts from resources that could be used to solve a more serious risk elsewhere?  04-19-2004.

Click here to become a registered Flt Tech Online subscriber and receive headlines delivered to your e-mail each week

Click here to go back to the headlines