[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 118 (Tuesday, June 20, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32198-32200]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-15007]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
[Change to AC No. 120-42A]
Proposed Appendix 7, Reduction of Operator's Inservice Experience
Requirement Prior to the Granting of an ETOPS Operational Approval
[Accelerated ETOPS Operational Approval], to Advisory Circular 120-42A,
Extended Range Operation with Two-Engine Airplanes (ETOPS)
Correction
In notice document 95-13403 beginning on page 28643 in the issue of
Thursday, June 1, 1995, Appendix 7 of Advisory Circular 120-42A was
inadvertently not published in the original document. Appendix 7 of
Advisory Circular 120-42A reads as follows:
Appendix 7: Reduction of Operator's in Service Experience Requirement
Prior to the Granting of ETOPS Operational Approval (Accelerated ETOPS
Operational Approval)
1. General
a. Paragraph 9(b) of AC 120-42A states the following:
(1) (In service experience) guidelines may be reduced or increased
following review and concurrence on a case-by-case basis by the
Director, Flight Standards Service.
(2) Any reduction * * * will be based on evaluation of the
operators ability and competence to achieve the necessary reliability
for the particular airframe/engine combination in extended range
operations.
(3) For example, a reduction in inservice experience may be
considered for an operator who can show extensive inservice experience
with a related engine on another airplane which has achieved acceptable
reliability.
(4) The substitution of in service experience which is equivalent
to the actual conduct of 120-minute ETOPS operations will also be
established by the Director, Flight Standards Service AFS-1, on a case
by case basis.
b. The purpose of this appendix is to establish the factors which
the Director, Flight Standards Service may consider in exercising the
authority to allow reduction or substitution of operators inservice
experience requirement in granting ETOPS Operational Approval.
c. Paragraph 7 of AC 120-42A states that * * * the concepts for
evaluating extended range operations with two-engine airplanes * * *
ensure that two-engine airplanes are consistent with the level of
safety required for current extended range operations with three and
four-engine turbine powered airplanes without unnecessarily restricting
operation.
d. It is apparent that the excellent propulsion related safety
record of two-engine airplanes has not only been maintained, but
potentially enhanced, by the process related provisions associated with
ETOPS Type Design and Operational Approvals. Further, currently
available data shows that these process related benefits are achievable
without extensive inservice experience. Therefore, reduction or
elimination of inservice experience requirements may be possible when
the operator shows to the FAA that adequate and validated ETOPS
processes are in place.
e. The Accelerated ETOPS Operations Approval Program with reduced
inservice does not imply that any reduction of existing levels of
safety should be tolerated but rather acknowledges that an operator may
be able to satisfy the objectives of AC 120-42A by a variety of means
of demonstrating that operator's capability.
f. This Appendix permits an operator to start ETOPS operations when
the operator has demonstrated to the FAA that those processes necessary
for successful ETOPS operations are in place and are considered to be
reliable. This may be achieved by thorough documentation of processes,
demonstration on another airplane/validation (as described in paragraph
7 of this Appendix) or a combination of these.
2. Background
a. When AC 120-42 was first released in 1985 ETOPS was a new
concept, requiring extensive inservice verification of capability to
assure the concept was a logical approach. At that time, the FAA
recognized that reduction in the inservice experience requirements or
substitution of inservice experience, on another airplane, would be
possible.
b. The ETOPS concept has been successfully applied for close to a
decade; ETOPS is now widely employed. The number of ETOPS operators has
increased dramatically, and in the North Atlantic U.S. airlines have
more twin operations than the number of operations accomplished by
three and four engine airplanes. ETOPS is now well established.
c. Under AC 120-42A, an operator was generally required to operate
an airframe-engine combination for one (1) year, before being eligible
for 120-minute ETOPS; and another one (1) year, at 120-minute ETOPS,
before being granted 180-minute ETOPS approval. For example, an
operator who currently has 180-minute ETOPS approval on one type of
airframe-engine or who is currently operating that route with an older
generation three or four engine airplane was required to wait for up to
two (2) years for such an approval. Such a requirement could create
undue economic burden on operators, while not contributing materially
to safety. Data indicates that compliance with processes has resulted
in successful ETOPS operation at earlier than the standard time
provided for in the advisory circular.
d. ETOPS operational data indicates that twins have maintained a
high degree of reliability due to implementation of specific
maintenance, engineering and flight operation process related
requirements. Compliance with ETOPS processes is crucial in assuring
high levels of reliability of twins. Data shows that previous
experience on an airframe-engine combination prior to operating ETOPS,
does not necessarily make a significant difference in the safety of
such operations. Commitment to establishment of reliable ETOPS
processes has been found to be a much more significant factor. Such
commitment, by operators, to ETOPS processes has, from the outset,
resulted in operation of twins at a mature level of reliability.
e. ETOPS experience of the past decade shows that a firm commitment
by the operator to establish proven ETOPS processes prior to the start
of actual ETOPS operations and to maintain that commitment throughout
the life of the program is paramount to ensuring safe and reliable
ETOPS operations.
3. Definitions
a. Process. A process is a series of steps or activities that are
accomplished, in a consistent manner, to assure that a desired result
is attained on an ongoing basis. Paragraph 4 documents ETOPS processes
that should be in place to ensure a successful Accelerated ETOPS
program.
b. Proven Process. A process is considered to be proven when the
following elements are developed and implemented:
(1) Definition and documentation of process
elements. [[Page 32199]]
(2) Definition of process related roles and responsibilities.
(3) Procedure for validation of process of process elements.
(i) Indications of process stability/reliability.
(ii) Parameters to validate process and monitor (measure) success.
(iii) Duration of necessary evaluation to validate process.
(4) Procedure for follow-up inservice monitoring to assure process
remains reliable/stable.
Methods of process validation are provided in paragraph 7.
4. ETOPS Processes
a. The two-engine airframe/engine combination for which the
operator is seeking Accelerated ETOPS Operational Approval must be
ETOPS Type Design approved prior to commencing ETOPS. The operator
seeking Accelerated ETOPS Operational Approval must demonstrate to the
FAA that it has an ETOPS program in place that addresses the process
elements identified in this section.
b. The following are the ETOPS process elements:
(1) Airplane/engine compliance to Type Design Build Standard (CMP).
(2) Compliance with the Maintenance Requirements as defined in
paragraph 10 and Appendix 4 of AC 120-42A:
(i) Fully developed Maintenance Program (Appendix 4, paragraph
1(a)(2)) which includes a tracking and control program.
(ii) ETOPS manual (Appendix 4, paragraph 1(a)(3)) in place.
(iii) A proven Oil Consumption Monitoring Program. (Appendix 4,
paragraph 1(a)(5)).
(iv) A proven Engine Condition Monitoring and Reporting system.
(Appendix 4, paragraph 1(a)(5)).
(v) A proven plan for Resolution of Airplane Discrepancies.
(Appendix 4, paragraph 1(a)(6)).
(vi) A proven ETOPS Reliability Program. (Appendix 4, paragraph
1(a)(7)).
(vii) Propulsion system monitoring program (Appendix 4, paragraph 1
(a)(8)) in place. The operator should establish a program that results
in a high degree of confidence that the propulsion system reliability
appropriate to the ETOPS diversion time would be maintained.
(viii) Training and qualifications program in place for ETOPS
maintenance personnel. (Appendix 4, paragraph 1(a)(9)).
(ix) Established ETOPS parts control program (Appendix 4, paragraph
1(a)(10)).
(3) Compliance with the Flight Operations Program as defined in
paragraph 10 and Appendix 5 of AC 120-42A:
(i) Proven flight planning and dispatch programs appropriate to
ETOPS.
(ii) Availability of meteorological information and MEL appropriate
to ETOPS.
(iii) Initial and recurrent training and checking program in place
for ETOPS flight operations personnel.
(iv) Flight crew and dispatch personnel familiarity assured with
the ETOPS routes to be flown; in particular the requirements for, and
selection of, enroute alternates.
(4) Documentation of the following elements:
(i) Technology new to the operator and significant difference in
primary and secondary power (engines, electrical, hydraulic and
pneumatic) systems between the airplanes currently operated and the
two-engine airplane for which the operator is seeking Accelerated ETOPS
Operational Approval.
(ii) The plan to train the flight and maintenance personnel to the
differences identified in paragraph 1 above.
(iii) The plan to use proven validated Training and Maintenance and
Operations Manual procedures relevant to ETOPS for the two-engine
airplane for which the operator is seeking Accelerated ETOPS
Operational Approval.
(iv) Changes to any previously proven validated Training,
Maintenance, or Operations Manual procedures described above. Depending
on the nature and extent of any changes, the operator may be required
to provide a plan for validating such changes.
(v) The validation plan for any additional operator unique training
and procedures relevant to ETOPS.
(vi) Details of any ETOPS program support from the airframe
manufacturer, engine manufacturer, other operators or any other outside
person.
(vii) The control procedures when maintenance or flight dispatch
support is provided by an outside person as described above.
5. Application
a. Paragraph 10(a) of AC 120-42A requires that requests for
extended range operations be submitted at least sixty (60) days prior
to the start of extended range operations. Normally, the operator
should submit an Accelerated ETOPS Operational Approval Plan to the FAA
six (6) months before the proposed start of extended range operations.
This time will permit the FAA to review the documented plans and assure
adequate ETOPS processes are in place. The operators application for
Accelerated ETOPS should:
(1) Define proposed routes and the ETOPS diversion time necessary
to support these routes.
(2) Define processes and related resources being allocated to
initiate and sustain ETOPS operations in a manner that demonstrates
commitment by management and all personnel involved in ETOPS
maintenance and operational support.
(3) Identify, where required, the plan for establishing compliance
with the build standard required for Type Design Approval, e.g., CMP
(Configuration, Maintenance and Procedures Document) compliance.
(4) Document plan for compliance with requirements in paragraph 4.
(5) Define Review Gates. A Review Gate is a milestone tracking plan
to allow for the orderly tracking and documentation of specific
requirements of this Appendix. Each Review Gate should be defined in
terms of the tasks to be satisfactorily accomplished in order for it to
be successfully passed. Items for which the FAA visibility is required
or the FAA approval is sought should be included in the Review Gates.
Normally, the Review Gate process will start six (6) months before the
proposed start of extended range operations and should continue at
least until six (6) months after the start of extended range
operations. Assure that the proven processes comply with the provisions
of paragraph 3 of this Appendix.
6. Operational Approvals
a. Operational approvals that are granted with reduced inservice
experience will be limited to those areas agreed on by the FAA at
approval of the Accelerated ETOPS Operational Approval Plan. When an
operator wishes to add new areas to the approved list, FAA concurrence
is required.
b. Operators will be eligible for ETOPS Operational Approval up to
the Type Design Approval limit, provided the operator complies with all
the requirements in paragraph 4.
7. Process Validation
a. Paragraph 4 identifies those process elements that need to be
proven prior to start of Accelerated ETOPS.
b. For a process to be considered proven, the process must first be
defined. Typically this will include a flow chart showing the various
elements of the process. Roles and responsibilities of the personnel
who will be managing this process should be defined including any
training requirement. The operator should [[Page 32200]] demonstrate
that the process is in place and functions as intended. The operator
may accomplish this by thorough documentation and analysis, or by
demonstrating on an airplane that the process works and consistently
provides the intended results. The operator should also show that a
feedback loop exists to illustrate need for revision of the process, if
required, based on inservice experience.
c. Normally the choice to use, or not use, demonstration on an
airplane as a means of validating the process should be left up to the
operator. With sufficient preparation and dedication of resources such
validation may not be necessary to assure processes should produce
acceptable results. However, in any case where the proposed plan to
prove the processes is determined by the FAA to be inadequate or the
plan does not produce acceptable results, validation of the process in
an airplane will be required.
d. If an operator is currently operating ETOPS with a different
airframe and/or engine combination it may be able to document that it
has proven ETOPS processes in place and only minimal further validation
may be necessary. It will, however, be necessary to demonstrate that
means are in place to assure equivalent results will occur on the
airplane being proposed for Accelerated ETOPS Operational Approval. The
following elements which while not required, may be useful or
beneficial in justifying a reduction in the validation requirements of
ETOPS processes:
(1) Experience with other airframes and/or engines.
(2) Previous ETOPS experience.
(3) Experience with long range, overwater operations with two,
three or four engine airplanes.
(4) Experience gained by flight crews, maintenance personnel and
flight dispatch personnel while working with other ETOPS approved
operators.
e. Process validation may be done in the airframe-engine
combination that will be used in Accelerated ETOPS operation or in a
different type airplane than that for which approval is being sought,
including those with three or four engines.
f. A process may be validated by first demonstrating the process
produces acceptable results on a different airplane type or airframe/
engine combination. It should then be necessary to demonstrate that
means are in place to assure equivalent results should occur on the
airplane being proposed for Accelerated ETOPS Operational Approval.
g. Any validation program should address the following:
(1) The operator should show that it has considered the impact of
the ETOPS validation program with regard to safety of flight
operations. The operator should state in its application any policy
guidance to personnel involved in the ETOPS process validation program.
Such guidance should clearly state that ETOPS process validation
exercises should not be allowed to adversely impact the safety of
operations especially during periods of abnormal, emergency, or high
cockpit workload operations. It should emphasize that during periods of
abnormal or emergency operation or high cockpit workload ETOPS process
validation exercises may be terminated.
(2) The validation scenario should be of sufficient frequency and
operational exposure to validate maintenance and operational support
systems not validated by other means.
(3) A means must be established to monitor and report performance
with respect to accomplishment of tasks associated with ETOPS process
elements. Any recommended changes to ETOPS maintenance and operational
process elements should be defined.
(4) Prior to the start of the process validation program, the
following information should be submitted to the FAA:
(i) Validation periods, including start dates and proposed
completion dates.
(ii) Definition of airplane to be used in the validation. List
should include registration numbers, manufacturer and serial number and
model of the airframes and engines.
(iii) Description of the areas of operation (if relevant to
validation objectives) proposed for validation and actual extended
range operations.
(iv) Definition of designated ETOPS validation routes. The routes
should be of duration necessary to ensure process validation occurs.
(5) Process validation reporting--The operator should compile
results of ETOPS process validation. The operator should:
(i) Document how each element of the ETOPS process was utilized
during the validation.
(ii) Document any shortcomings with the process elements and
measures in place to correct such shortcomings.
(iii) Document any changes to ETOPS processes that were required
after an inflight shut down (IFSD), unscheduled engine removals, or any
other significant operational events.
(iv) Provide periodic Process Validation reports to the FAA. This
may be addressed during the Review Gates.
Thomas C. Accardi,
Director, Flight Standards Service.
[FR Doc. 95-15007 Filed 6-19-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
