This was mentioned in the IndiGo A320neo engine failure thread but I believe deserves its own topic since it also came up in the thread regarding Spirits two engine issues. We have seen a few shutdown or loss of thrust events on the PW1100G. A rejected takeoff event is different but there have been other issues with the engine.

Do we know what the IFSD rate is for the PW1100G? The FAA requires a fleet average of 0.02 per 1000 engine hours. If there have been 2 or more shutdown events in less than 100,000 hours of operation, the PW1100G may not meet ETOPS requirements. Do we know if any airlines currently are or soon plan to fly the PW1100G A320neo under ETOPS?


FAA ETOPS requirements per 14 CFR 21.4

In-flight shutdown (IFSD) means, for ETOPS only, when an engine ceases to function (when the airplane is airborne) and is shutdown, whether self induced, flightcrew initiated or caused by an external influence. The FAA considers IFSD for all causes: for example, flameout, internal failure, flightcrew initiated shutdown, foreign object ingestion, icing, inability to obtain or control desired thrust or power, and cycling of the start control, however briefly, even if the engine operates normally for the remainder of the flight. This definition excludes the airborne cessation of the functioning of an engine when immediately followed by an automatic engine relight and when an engine does not achieve desired thrust or power but is not shutdown.

(i) A rate of 0.05 per 1,000 world-fleet engine-hours for an airplane-engine combination approved for up to and including 120-minute ETOPS. When all ETOPS operators have complied with the corrective actions required in the configuration, maintenance and procedures (CMP) document as a condition for ETOPS approval, the rate to be maintained is at or below 0.02 per 1,000 world-fleet engine-hours.

(ii) A rate of 0.02 per 1,000 world-fleet engine-hours for an airplane-engine combination approved for up to and including 180-minute ETOPS, including airplane-engine combinations approved for 207-minute ETOPS in the North Pacific operating area under appendix P, section I, paragraph (h), of part 121 of this chapter.

(iii) A rate of 0.01 per 1,000 world-fleet engine-hours for an airplane-engine combination approved for ETOPS beyond 180 minutes, excluding airplane-engine combinations approved for 207-minute ETOPS in the North Pacific operating area under appendix P, section I, paragraph (h), of part 121 of this chapter.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/21.4

Newbiepilot wrote:

Do we know if any airlines currently are or soon plan to fly the PW1100G A320neo under ETOPS?

Yes, Hawaiian, though they'll be getting the 321neo. 3 of 18 deliveries are expected this fall, several months late.

When does Airbus expect to get ETOPS approval? Obviously it has to be before Hawaiian gets their planes.

The A320neo is not ETOPS certified. That applies to both CFM and P&W powerplants. Whatever teething issues there are, Airbus will have to demonstrate with their test fleet that it can meet ETOPS regulations.

Newbiepilot wrote:

When does Airbus expect to get ETOPS approval? Obviously it has to be before Hawaiian gets their planes.

Hawaiian deliveries are months away (H2 2017). It seems ETOPS approval may come in the next six months.

With the number of aircraft already in service they would be doing in excess of 40,000 hrs per month. As more are delivered the fleet hours keep expanding.

Etops approvals are given to airlines, not aircraft. Does Hawaiian already have Etops approval ?

zeke wrote:

Etops approvals are given to airlines, not aircraft. Does Hawaiian already have Etops approval ?

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're asking if HA has ETOPS approval specifically for the 321neo and not the airline as a whole. Since HA hasn't received their 321's yet, I'm guessing they're not quite ETOPS certified for this frame just yet. Lots of work has been going on behind the scenes to make this all happen however and the hope is to get the first deliveries into service ASAP after they arrive at HA. The initial plan was for the planes to start arriving in July and go into service Sept 1st and all be online before the Christmas holiday rush. With the delay, that timeframe is likely not going to happen, with revenue service more likely to happen at the start of 2018.

zeke wrote:

With the number of aircraft already in service they would be doing in excess of 40,000 hrs per month. As more are delivered the fleet hours keep expanding.

Etops approvals are given to airlines, not aircraft. Does Hawaiian already have Etops approval ?

What!! You're talking out of your foofy valve. Etops applies to an aircraft not an airline. We all remember AA sending the wrong A321 on an etops flight.

zeke wrote:

With the number of aircraft already in service they would be doing in excess of 40,000 hrs per month. As more are delivered the fleet hours keep expanding.

Etops approvals are given to airlines, not aircraft. Does Hawaiian already have Etops approval ?

Sorry Zeke but this time you are talking rubbish. As per the previous post, although using a less harsh tone. ETOPS approval applies to both the Airframe and the Airline. For example, Air New Zealand is approved for 330 minutes ETOPS / LROPS. This is only on specific 777 and 787 frames. If they decided to fly another frame on this route, say an A350 or B777-9 before the CAA of NZ deemed it worthy, they would not be legally able to do so, if not approved for these operations. Your statement implies that any airlines with ETOPS approval for the airline; can carry out ETOPS flight wherever they wish using any frame. This is wrong.

I would have thought as a senior CX pilot you would have an in depth knowledge of ETOPS regulations around the world. This is apparently not the case.

I hope you won't use "alternative facts" to contradict this...

We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar

Balerit wrote:

zeke wrote:

With the number of aircraft already in service they would be doing in excess of 40,000 hrs per month. As more are delivered the fleet hours keep expanding.

Etops approvals are given to airlines, not aircraft. Does Hawaiian already have Etops approval ?

What!! You're talking out of your foofy valve. Etops applies to an aircraft not an airline. We all remember AA sending the wrong A321 on an etops flight.

ETOPS applies to both the airline and airplane. The airline has to be certified for ETOPS, with a maintenance program and proper fleet monitoring. This is where the In Flight Shut Down rates can impact an airlines ability fly ETOPS. If the IFSD rate for the airplane type at a specific airline is too high, the airline may be restricted to lower limits.

The specific airplane has to be equipped for ETOPS which may include additional equipment like more fire bottles than a standard plane. The plane also has to fly in accordance with the minimum equipment list and dispatch deviation guidelines for ETOPS configuration which can limit deferrals.

The airframe also has to be certified to establish what the maximum ETOPS limits are. The A321neo and A321LR will need ETOPS 180 for operations like Hawaii to the mainland.

Newbiepilot wrote:

Balerit wrote:

zeke wrote:

With the number of aircraft already in service they would be doing in excess of 40,000 hrs per month. As more are delivered the fleet hours keep expanding.

Etops approvals are given to airlines, not aircraft. Does Hawaiian already have Etops approval ?

What!! You're talking out of your foofy valve. Etops applies to an aircraft not an airline. We all remember AA sending the wrong A321 on an etops flight.

ETOPS applies to both the airline and airplane.

And in some countries, the engine type as well. Zeke is quite wrong in his statement, you are correct, with the addition of engine type. My airline in NZ only has ETOPS approval on certain B772, B77W and B789.

Balerit wrote:

What!! You're talking out of your foofy valve.

77west wrote:

Sorry Zeke but this time you are talking rubbish.

I'm pretty sure that what Zeke actually said is actually entirely correct, especially when read in context as a response to the preceding post.

The manufacturers cannot get an ETOPS approval that will allow any airline to operate a specific aircraft type (or even a specific aircraft) under ETOPS regs.

So Zeke is correct in that it is the airline that is granted the ETOPS approval, albeit for specific aircraft.

Balerit wrote:

Etops applies to an aircraft not an airline.

Wrong. If an aircraft that has ETOPS approval is sold on to a different airline, they have to apply for a new approval.

speedbored wrote:

Balerit wrote:

What!! You're talking out of your foofy valve.

77west wrote:

Sorry Zeke but this time you are talking rubbish.

I'm pretty sure that what Zeke actually said is actually entirely correct, especially when read in context as a response to the preceding post.

The manufacturers cannot get an ETOPS approval that will allow any airline to operate a specific aircraft type (or even a specific aircraft) under ETOPS regs.

So Zeke is correct in that it is the airline that is granted the ETOPS approval, albeit for specific aircraft.

Balerit wrote:

Etops applies to an aircraft not an airline.

Wrong. If an aircraft that has ETOPS approval is sold on to a different airline, they have to apply for a new approval.

Airplanes cannot get an ETOPS approval by themselves. Airlines cannot get an ETOPS approval by themselves. An Airline can get an ETOPS approval for its operations on a specific fleet/model of airplane.

That sound better.?

77west wrote:

Airplanes cannot get an ETOPS approval by themselves. Airlines cannot get an ETOPS approval by themselves. An Airline can get an ETOPS approval for its operations on a specific fleet/model of airplane.

That sound better.?

Seems to me that everyone is actually in agreement about this but there appears to be some semantic misunderstanding going on.

My previous post was entirely correct, for HA (being the certificate holder) would need to have gained ETOPS approval.

The relevant regulation is FAR 121.161

§ 121.161 Airplane limitations: Type of route.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, unless approved by the Administrator in accordance with Appendix P of this part and authorized in the certificate holder's operations specifications, no certificate holder may operate a turbine-engine-powered airplane over a route that contains a point -

(1) Farther than a flying time from an Adequate Airport (at a one-engine-inoperative cruise speed under standard conditions in still air) of 60 minutes for a two-engine airplane or 180 minutes for a passenger-carrying airplane with more than two engines;

(2) Within the North Polar Area; or

(3) Within the South Polar Area.

(b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, no certificate holder may operate a land airplane (other than a DC-3, C-46, CV-240, CV-340, CV-440, CV-580, CV-600, CV-640, or Martin 404) in an extended overwater operation unless it is certificated or approved as adequate for ditching under the ditching provisions of part 25 of this chapter.

(c) Until December 20, 2010, a certificate holder may operate, in an extended overwater operation, a nontransport category land airplane type certificated after December 31, 1964, that was not certificated or approved as adequate for ditching under the ditching provisions of part 25 of this chapter.

(d) Unless authorized by the Administrator based on the character of the terrain, the kind of operation, or the performance of the airplane to be used, no certificate holder may operate a reciprocating-engine-powered airplane over a route that contains a point farther than 60 minutes flying time (at a one-engine-inoperative cruise speed under standard conditions in still air) from an Adequate Airport.

(e) Operators of turbine-engine powered airplanes with more than two engines do not need to meet the requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of this section until February 15, 2008.

zeke wrote:

My previous post was entirely correct, for HA (being the certificate holder) would need to have gained ETOPS approval.

Of course HA has ETOPS approval... how do you think they've been flying the 767 and 330 for all these years? To address the issue of the 321, as I've said, none have been delivered quite yet, so full approval for that fleet is forthcoming.

From Boeing:

Before ETOPS revenue service can be started, there are two distinct approval steps that must be
completed. First the airplane manufacturer must obtain ETOPS Type Design Approval from the
applicable regulatory agencies for the specific airframe/engine combination. Second, the
operator must obtain ETOPS Operational Approval from the applicable regulatory agency.
FAR Part 25 §25.3, §25.1535, and Appendix K to Far Part 25 define the requirements for an
airframe/engine combination to be granted an ETOPS Type Design Approval. Specific
certification requirements also exist for turbine engines that are to be certified for ETOPS and
these are now published in FAR Part 33, mostly in Subpart G. Three methods of complying with
these requirements are defined: one involving specified amounts of revenue service experience
with the specific airframe/engine combination; the second allowing ETOPS Certification
simultaneously with basic airplane certification; and the third as a combination of the first two
methods

Looks like Pratt is further improving engine reliability. I'm not sure if an improved combustor liner will reduce in-flight shutdowns, so will post it anyway:

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ty-433512/

Speaking on a fourth quarter earnings, Hayes acknowledged that some GTF operators, especially in India, have reported reliability concerns about a fuel seal and a combustor liner. In response, P&W will deliver upgraded parts to retrofit later this year. Meanwhile, P&W has dipped into a pool of spare engines to help meet aircraft dispatch targets, he says.

“These are just normal growing pains on any new engine,” Hayes adds. “Nothing that’s causing us to lose a lot of sleep.”

You should have been around when the JT9 was first put into service.

azjubilee wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

Do we know if any airlines currently are or soon plan to fly the PW1100G A320neo under ETOPS?

Yes, Hawaiian, though they'll be getting the 321neo. 3 of 18 deliveries are expected this fall, several months late.

Also note that Hawaiian will take the higher thrust PW1135G model, this PW1100G variant has not been certified yet.

BravoOne wrote:

You should have been around when the JT9 was first put into service.

Even the CFM56 had issues with blade rubbing and rain ingestion when it was introduced in the 80s. You would still hope that OEMs get better and better at introducing new products over time, but that's life.

HA will start ETOPS certification after receiving the first A321neo in October this year.

https://twitter.com/WandrMe/status/855158274919944192
https://twitter.com/WandrMe/status/855171371059621889

Anyone aware how the CFM LEAP is performing after EIS. Heard it is glitch free so far..

zeke wrote:

With the number of aircraft already in service they would be doing in excess of 40,000 hrs per month. As more are delivered the fleet hours keep expanding.

Etops approvals are given to airlines, not aircraft. Does Hawaiian already have Etops approval ?

A beautiful Catch for Rockies!

Slds

StereoTechque wrote:

Anyone aware how the CFM LEAP is performing after EIS. Heard it is glitch free so far..

There was news here of early removals due to metal detection....

StereoTechque wrote:

Anyone aware how the CFM LEAP is performing after EIS. Heard it is glitch free so far..

Yeah, not quite. A few removals have been mentioned.
But, fortunately, nothing like what the Pratt folks have managed. That engine is clearly a turd. Like most of its predecessors.
The good news is that - eventually - Pratt gets the bugs worked out of their engines.

Small update on the subject, P&W expect ETOPS certification in Q4:

The company is cautiously optimistic about receiving ETOPS clearance for the GTF in the 4th quarter of the year. All of the paperwork and reliability data are in with the regulators, and the company is now awaiting a decision.

https://airinsight.com/2017/05/31/updat ... tf-engine/

Of course, airlines will separately have to obtain ETOPS certification by themselves.

Some more information:

Pratt & Whitney has incorporated all these fixes in an improved PW1100G-JM combustor designated “CSTARS,” which is now undergoing testing at the company’s System Engineering Development Assembly Engine Center in West Palm Beach. CSTARS is the combustor Pratt &Whitney will use to achieve extended twin engine operations (ETOPS) certification for the PW1100G-JM, which it is targeting for this year’s fourth quarter.

“We remain cautiously optimistic about [achieving] ETOPS in the fourth quarter,” said Calio. “We’re meeting all the performance requirements and the regulatory agencies now have the paperwork” associated with P&W’s ETOPS certification testing. Deliveries of Hawaiian Airlines’ A321neos, planned to begin this year, are dependent on the PW1100G-JM achieving ETOPS certification, because all its services between Hawaii and U.S. mainland destinations are ETOPS operations.

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ ... -fuel-burn

The engine with the improved combustor is the one Hawaiian is waiting for.

The PW1100G variant for the A320neo received ETOPS 180 approval:

Pratt & Whitney's PurePower PW1100G-JM engine has been granted 180 minute Extended Range Operations (ETOPS) eligibility by the European Aviation Safety Agency. The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration had approved ETOPs for the engine in December 2016. The ETOPS certification sets the maximum allowed amount of single-engine flying time that an aircraft can be from the nearest suitable airport. The PW1100G-JM engine powers the A320neo. Pratt & Whitney is a division of United Technologies Corp. (NYSE:UTX).

Press release
http://newsroom.pw.utc.com/2017-06-19-P ... us-A320neo

The A321neo should follow in Q4 this year.

So to sum up, the FAA had already got that engine to the stage last December that an airline could have obtained ETDO approval.

KarelXWB wrote:

The PW1100G variant for the A320neo received ETOPS 180 approval:

Pratt & Whitney's PurePower PW1100G-JM engine has been granted 180 minute Extended Range Operations (ETOPS) eligibility by the European Aviation Safety Agency. The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration had approved ETOPs for the engine in December 2016. The ETOPS certification sets the maximum allowed amount of single-engine flying time that an aircraft can be from the nearest suitable airport. The PW1100G-JM engine powers the A320neo. Pratt & Whitney is a division of United Technologies Corp. (NYSE:UTX).

Press release
http://newsroom.pw.utc.com/2017-06-19-P ... us-A320neo

The A321neo should follow in Q4 this year.

Wow! As a Pratt fan it felt like it wouldn't ever happen!

Not so good as CFM is bragging they'll get ETOPS later this month the -1A and -1B.
http://aviationweek.com/paris-air-show- ... leap-etops

Lightsaber

The EASA type certificate data sheet has been updated:

https://www.easa.europa.eu/system/files ... Iss_29.pdf