WI: FAA Repeals 60 Minute Rule Sooner

kernals12

Banned
Until 1985, there was an FAA rule saying that twin engined American airliners could not travel more than 60 minutes from a diversion airport. The rule was based on the poor reliability of piston engines, and was meant to ensure that a plane could safely land even if one of its engines failed. But jet engines, by virtue of their simplicity, are far more reliable, and it is extremely unlikely that two engines could fail in-flight. As such, the rule was simply an anachronistic piece of red tape that hindered airline efficiency as this video explains.
The rule was repealed in 1985, with dramatic consequences. Trijets essentially disappeared overnight and today, the ginormous Boeing 747 and even bigger Airbus A380 are the last remaining quadjets. Airlines have been able to save lots of money by flying fuel sipping twinjets on transatlantic flights, and air service to much of Hawaii has been opened up.

So what if the rule was repealed in 1965 instead of 1985? How would the aircraft industry have changed?
 
Err...
It really required JET engines to reach a certain level of reliability. It also required some degree of passenger comfort with the idea.

It really wasn't "simply an anachronistic piece of red tape".

If it were repealed in 1965, you probably are going to get a major accident where one engine goes out and the extra strain of flying on only one engine causes another failure - possibly in a different system like the steering (counteracting the unbalanced thrust) or something the pilots (getting overtired due that physical strain).

One major disaster with a too early ETOPS rule and regulation clamps down for decades longer.
 
Note that the ICAO didn't go to 90 minutes for twinjets until 1974. Getting the FAA go to 90 minutes a decade early is surely possible. Two decades early is too much.

And note that the rule wasn't 'dropped', it was gradually amended. From 60 to 90, then when that worked out to 180 and then later beyond.

There's no way the rule is just going to be dropped in 1965.
 

kernals12

Banned
Err...
It really required JET engines to reach a certain level of reliability. It also required some degree of passenger comfort with the idea.

It really wasn't "simply an anachronistic piece of red tape".


If it were repealed in 1965, you probably are going to get a major accident where one engine goes out and the extra strain of flying on only one engine causes another failure - possibly in a different system like the steering (counteracting the unbalanced thrust) or something the pilots (getting overtired due that physical strain).

One major disaster with a too early ETOPS rule and regulation clamps down for decades longer.
Turbine engines have vastly fewer moving parts than piston engines, that inherently makes them more reliable.
 

kernals12

Banned
Note that the ICAO didn't go to 90 minutes for twinjets until 1974. Getting the FAA go to 90 minutes a decade early is surely possible. Two decades early is too much.

And note that the rule wasn't 'dropped', it was gradually amended. From 60 to 90, then when that worked out to 180 and then later beyond.

There's no way the rule is just going to be dropped in 1965.
Ok, so what if the FAA went to 90 minutes in 1975? Is that enough for direct flights from New York to London?
 

kernals12

Banned
If the rule is repealed in the 70s, that's extremely bad news for McDonnell Douglas, which sees demand for the trijet DC-10 vanish long before they've broken even. The Lockheed L-1011 was a money pit IOTL and would be an even bigger one ITTL. This is why I'd prefer the rule to be repealed in the 60s. At that time, the industry was just making the transition from quad jets, and so repealing the rule then means they don't blow a bunch of money on trijets and instead go straight to twins.
 

SsgtC

Banned
Turbine engines have vastly fewer moving parts than piston engines, that inherently makes them more reliable.
Only in theory. Early jet engines were less reliable than late piston engines. In 1965, jets were just beginning to be seen as reliable. The FAA wouldn't drop the 60 min rule yet. As @Dathi THorfinnsson said, going to 90 minutes around 75 is feasible. Straight dropping it is not
 
Ok, so what if the FAA went to 90 minutes in 1975? Is that enough for direct flights from New York to London?
I can't find how fast various planes fly short an engine. But looking at a great circle route JFK-LHR, you already pass very near Gander and Shannon. So the problem basically reduces to that.

Guestimating distances, yeah 90 minutes ETOPS might possibly work, or might require you to fly just a wee bit North of the great circle route - but close enough to be doable.

WAG.
 
There's a handy mapping tool for ETOPS and great circle routes here: http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=NYC-LHR&MS=wls&DU=mi&E=90&EV=389&EU=kts

It looks like a straight-shot with 90 minutes isn't feasible, but a diversion up towards Greenland manages an important number: its total distance is just under 3,900 miles:

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=NYC-GOH-LHR&MS=wls&DU=mi&E=90&EV=389&EU=kts

That means when they come to market in the first few years of the 1980s, there's a viable trans-atlantic service pattern for the Boeing 757 and 767, which will immediately suck a lot of air out of the room for trijets.
 
There's a handy mapping tool for ETOPS and great circle routes here: http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=NYC-LHR&MS=wls&DU=mi&E=90&EV=389&EU=kts

It looks like a straight-shot with 90 minutes isn't feasible, but a diversion up towards Greenland manages an important number: its total distance is just under 3,900 miles:

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=NYC-GOH-LHR&MS=wls&DU=mi&E=90&EV=389&EU=kts

That means when they come to market in the first few years of the 1980s, there's a viable trans-atlantic service pattern for the Boeing 757 and 767, which will immediately suck a lot of air out of the room for trijets.
Cool! I never realized you could get ETOPS ranges appearing on the map.

It looks to me like the range from Greenland is from the main airport at Kangerlussuaq BGSF/SFJ (Søndre Strømfjord). If the second biggest airport BGBW/UAK, way to the south at Narsarsuaq (air Base) were upraded for diversions, the the 90 minute circle would chop a lot of the dark (forbidden) space out, allowing, as i proposed, just a slight shift north to stay legit.
 
I can't find how fast various planes fly short an engine. But looking at a great circle route JFK-LHR, you already pass very near Gander and Shannon. So the problem basically reduces to that.

Guestimating distances, yeah 90 minutes ETOPS might possibly work, or might require you to fly just a wee bit North of the great circle route - but close enough to be doable.

WAG.
I'd see it as just about acceptable, though there would be a significant number of diversions to those airports.
 

Errolwi

Monthly Donor
You're going to get a fair number of flight delays and cancellations as well, aren't you? You can't use an ETOPS route if your divert is closed due to weather right? What's the bad-weather tech like at this time?
 
Top