[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