Engines Turn Or Passengers Swim

The national geographic channel has a programme "Air Crash Investigation" that recaps and investigates air disasters and other mishaps. I happened to see the one regarding an Airbus A330 AirTransat north atlantic crossing that had to make an emergency landing in the Azores islands, Portugal. This episode was titled "Flying on Empty". The ultra-modern fly-by-wire Airtransat Airbus A-330 flight 236 with 306 passengers on board departed Toronto, Canada enroute to Lisbon, Portugal at around 8pm in August 2001. The first half of the journey was incident free. Trouble began then, when the co-pilot noticed some oil pressure problems on his panel and also saw fuel imbalance between the two fuel tanks supplying fuel to the engines on the left and right wings. Going through the Airbus manual, the pilots took a decision to open up the cross-feed valve that balances fuel between the tanks. The oil pressure and fuel imbalance problem was because of a fuel leak in the right wing and the balancing of fuel meant that fuel from the left wing was also wasted on leaking right wing. Soon the aircraft was flying with the engines shut off because of empty fuel tanks. The problem with high-tech fly-by-wire mechanisms is that controlling the aircraft requires power and and without engines the electrical generators on board don't function. Airbus aircrafts do have emergency ram air turbines to supply power but the supply doesn't include the main flaps and the brakes. Luckily for everyone aboard this flight the Azores islands were within gliding range for the aircraft to attempt a landing. Though the landing was not smooth, there were no fatalities except for 10 injured passengers. Investigations pointed out that AirTransat engineers had replaced a faulty bracket on the right wing that had seared off the supply pipe to the right engine thus dumping 37000 gallons of aviation fuel into the Atlantic Ocean.

This put a question in my mind. What would have happened if the Azores Islands were not within landing distance of the aircraft? Would it mean that all 306 passengers would meet a watery grave? Were there any regulations by Aviation authorities to ensure safe flying? My curiosity led to the term ETOPS (Extended-range Twin-engine Operation Performance Standards) or jokingly called "Engines turn or passengers swim". Historically, aircrafts had piston based engines that were not very reliable. The FAA introduced regulations that restricted twin engined aircrafts to stay within 60 minutes flying time to a nearest airport to handle engine failure emergencies. The distance from an airport corresponding to the 60 minutes flying time may vary depending on the speed of the aircraft with one engine inoperative. But this meant that crossing the Atlantic would take longer and weather at airports in the flight path became critical for deciding the trans-atlantic crossing.
But the development and deployment of the turbine engine (jet engine) changed the equation. These engines not only provided more thrust but also were much more reliable than the piston based ones. The 3 engined Boeing 727 was the first aircraft that was waived the 60 minute rule when flying across oceans. This led to the development of tri-engine aircrafts such as the Lockheed TriStar and the McDonnell Douglas DC-10. The Boeing 747 was also one of the effects of relaxing the 60-minute rule for aircrafts propelled by more than 2 engines. However, outside the US the diversion time was 90-minutes and Airbus had come up with the Airbus A300, a twin engine wide body airliner that was smaller than the DC-10 and the Tristar, but at the same time was very efficient and cheaper to operate. The A300 also showed amazingly low failure rates for a twin-engine aircraft and was quite a big success outside the US. The response to the A300 from Boeing were the 757s and the 767s.

The success and superior technical design of these twin-engine aircrafts (A300, Boeing 757 and 767) and the active lobbying from the aircraft industry prompted the FAA to introduce ETOPS. The initial version of ETOPS allowed properly designed twin-engine aircrafts a diversion time of 120 minutes and was called ETOPS-120. Soon ETOPS-180 was introduced that certified aircrafts to have a 180-minute diversion time after subjecting them to stringent technical tests. Many twin-engined aircrafts like the A300, A310, A320, A330 series from Airbus and some 737s, 757s and 767s from Boeing were ETOPS certified. ETOPS-180 allowed 95% of the earth's surface to be covered by these flights. The introduction of ETOPS meant that production of tri-engined aircrafts (DC-10 and Tristar) were abandoned and production of 4 engined aircrafts like the 747s were scaled down. The JAA (Joint Aviation Authority) and the ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization) adopted ETOPS for flights across the globe. To accomodate for bad weather conditions and volcanic activities in diversion airports (snow in Greenland or volcanoes in the Aleutians), a 15% extension was provided to the ETOPS-180 and ETOPS-120 regulations, introducing ETOPS-138 and ETOPS-207. The Boeing 777 is the only aircraft allowed to operate under ETOPS-207, if and only if the diversion airports are closed because of adverse operating conditions.

Private Jets are exempted from ETOPS within the FAAs jurisdiction, but they are subjected to ETOPS-120 in JAAs jurisdiction. In the southern hemisphere, twin jets are still off-limits on several routes because of ETOPS regulations. I found this ETOPS FAQ which could be of interest to the readers of this blog.

share this: facebook

Tires Tires everywhere, not a single one to race

After 5 successive successful years of F1 Grand Prix racing in the US, yesterdays GP at the Indianapolis circuit turned out to be a farce for the ardent F1 fan. As most of the media is screaming out, yesterday could be marked as a black day in the history of F1 racing.

Background: The FIA has allowed a couple of tire manufacturers to provide racing tires for the cars that compete in F1 racing. These high tech tires have different specs and compounds depending on the race track, the weather conditions and other countless number of parameters. Michelin and Bridgestone are the 2 rival tire manufacturers in F1 racing currently. Michelin partners with 7 teams, 2 of the teams (Renault and McLaren) leading the constructors championship points tally in this season. Bridgestone collaborates with the other "top" team i.e. Ferrari.

The new regulations, enforces teams to use a certain set of tires for the entire racing weekend. Teams are not supposed to change tires or bring in new tires other than the designated set during the course of the entire racing weekend (qualifier and the race). If teams change tires, they would be penalized. However there are exceptions to this rule. A team can change tires if any tire is punctured or it is beyond race use (highly ambiguous :)). Teams can also change from slicks to wet weather tires depending on the weather conditions.

The race weekend at the Indianapolis racing circuit did not begin as expected. Friday practice saw Ralf Schumacher in his Toyota crash out at Turn 13 by hitting the wall before the start-finish straight. This is his second accident in consecutive years at the same turning. He withdrew from the race after the accident relinquishing his position to team member Ricardo Zonta who faced a similar plight on the turn. The reason for these accidents were not clear and Michelin tire samples were flown to France (Michelin headquarters)

The Problem: Michelin engineers analyzed the samples from the friday accidents and put forward a statement on Saturday apologizing that the tires supplied to the teams would not last the race distance for the Michelin runners (70% of the racing cars). Michelin and the racing teams met to decide on the possible mitigation strategies for this problem and put forth the following proposals in front of the governing body.

1. Airlift fresh set of tires from France the would be safer to race
2. Reduce the speed on Turn 13 by introducing a chicane there

The FIA verdict: The FIA ruled out option 1. Once the rules have been set, they cannot be bent to accommodate a technical defect. This would be unfair for the Bridgestone teams who have done well to get all the technicality figured out right. The FIA rules would also lose respect as teams could exploit similar situations in the future and the FIA would be obliged to provide exceptions in those circumstances. The FIA ruled out option 2 too. The regulations set by the FIA doesn't allow tracks to be modified once practice and qualifying is done. Further if a chicane is introduced on turn 13 was there enough time to do a safety analysis of that part of the circuit? There are rumors that 9 out of the 10 teams agreed for this proposal, but the proposal was rejected by the Ferrari team as they felt that their car could handle turn 13 well and it would be unfair for them, if a chicane was introduced. There are also reports that the proposal was accepted by F1 boss Bernie Ecclestone, but was vetoed by Max Mosley, president of the FIA. It is a well known secret that F1 racing is basically divided into 2 groups, 1) the 7 Michelin teams (that plan to break away in 2008) and 2) Bernie, Max and the Ferraris.

The FIA made a proposal to the Michelin teams that they should regulate the speed at turn 13 for all their cars or change tires frequently during the race incurring a penalty for each tire change.

Michelin and their teams stand: The 7 teams collaborating with Michelin rejected the FIA proposal. When a driver is racing, the team management cannot control the racing instincts of a driver at a particular turn and ask him to go slowly. It would also be an unfair advantage for the Bridgestone runners if the Michelin cars were going slowly in that turn. Citing both driver safety and competitive advantage for opposition, all Michelin runners decided to boycott the race after the formation lap unless their proposal of introducing a chicane was accepted. This standoff led to only 6 cars racing on the circuit to the disappointment of all the fans who had gathered there.

The Result: A disappointed and irate crowd started pelting water bottles and beer cans as the Ferraris made mockery of the Jordans and Minardis to finish one-two. Many F1 fans left the circuit moments after the red lights went off. There were demands for ticket refunds. Michelin, FIA and the teams were booed for their respective decisions. There was no victory celebrations on the podium except for Montiero and the Jordan team.

Montiero's Jordan finished 3rd much to the delight of the Portuguese driver and the Jordan team. I was very disappointed with Narain's performance though he ended up in the points (How he did that is a no-brainer :)).

My Opinion: I think Michelin should take most of the blame for the fiasco. I am quite happy that the FIA didn't bend any of their rules. Having said that they should look into revising their regulations by making it a little less rigid. I have heard that there are plans of enforcing a single tire manufacturer for F1. After this incident, I am sure Michelin wouldn't be the obvious choice. Whether it is the right solution, I am not sure.

I see the predicament of the teams in boycotting the race. The team management is morally bound in protecting the safety of its drivers against hazardous conditions and giving them the best equipment to compete. Once Michelin came up with a statement that their tires were not safe to race on, the team managers were obligated not to run the cars. Whatever said and done, the F1 fan is the one who is going to be bitterly disappointed. I know people who have traveled from far off place to view the race, only to see a six car- one sided race. Their loss cannot be compensated.

The Winners:

• Champ car and other US racing events. The popularity of F1 would definitely decline in the US. There are rumors that F1 would move out of US once the Indy contract ends. There is also news that the F1 tickets can be used by racing fans to attend a Champ car event, which would improve its popularity in the country.
• Bridgestone. The Bridgestone tire manufacturer is going to benefit from Michelin's debacle. If the FIA plans to have a single tire manufacturer for F1, Bridgestone is going to be the frontrunner
• Ferrari. The former world champion team is already on par with the 2nd place McLaren team this season with Michael Schumacher close on Kimi's heels after yesterday's race. This means that they now have a realistic chance of defending their world championship title. They have got a foot in the door. Will they be able to take advantage of this? Time will tell.
• Minardis and Jordans. The back markers for F1 got their chance to be among the points and also on the podium :). Another fact is that both the Minardis and Jordans are now ahead of BAR Honda (0 points), a front runner team.

The Losers:

• The F1 fan: Millions of fans worldwide, were disappointed with yesterday's race. I even heard reports that TV channels stopped broadcasting the race once they saw that only 6 cars were competing. Most of the fans who actually came to watch the race would have spent hundreds of dollars to get a glimpse of their favorite teams and drivers.
• F1 Sport: Already there are reports that US would not be a racing circuit in the next season because of the losses people have incurred. Globalization of this sport would take a big hit after this incident.
• Michelin: Since yesterday, Michelin stocks have already taken a dip. Lot of damage control needs to be done by this tire manufacturer. Michelin has already apologized for the technical problem, but feel justified that the Michelin runners didn't take part in the race. Michelin has argued that they have been honest and open in letting the teams know of their defects and in keeping the safety of the drivers their primary goal. An accident would probably have them entangled in a expensive law suit in an US court that would cost more than the losses they have incurred by not letting their cars race.
• Michelin Runners: The 7 Michelin teams not only lost their points and advantage in the world championship, but also they may have to shell out huge amounts of compensation along with Michelin to the angry American fans depending on how things turn out. Advertising is an important revenue generator for F1 teams and after Sunday's debacle, the teams may have to pay back the ad amount they had taken for the race. The net loss for the Michelin teams could be in the order of millions of USDs

share this: facebook