This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Aviation This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: | b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> | b2<!--Coverage and accuracy   --> = <yes/no> | b3<!--Structure               --> = <yes/no> | b4<!--Grammar and style       --> = <yes/no> | b5<!--Supporting materials    --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

Archives

Archive 1

This user finds the map confusing. The text says, "... if an aircraft is certified for 180 minutes, it is permitted to fly any route not more than 180 minutes single-engine flying time to the nearest suitable airport." Shouldn't that be the dashed blue line, as all parts of that line are within distance R of a suitable airport? Similarly, shouldn't the portion of the green line marked outside the circles, marked with the bracket, be the Non-ETOPS portion of a flight? Thanks. 184.23.11.185 (talk) 22:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC) Anon User[reply]

I agree. It seems to me that either the map is wrong, or the article doesn't properly explain what an "ETOPS flight path" is. 208.91.121.202 (talk) 15:25, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Map legend seems wrong : green flight line and dashed blue line are inversed

1)radius must be less than 180mile/180mins-of-flight-apart else the plane doesn't make it to the airport for emergency land ops188.25.57.84 (talk) 01:26, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Picture is good enough but caption is wrong. Green line is not "ETOPS flight path" but rather something like "Shortest flight path achieved by ETOPS" (ideal route) Apetrov09703 (talk) 17:43, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I fixed this in the wikitext caption, but the image-of-text legend still needs updating or removal. -- Beland (talk) 00:10, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the article title because, though LROPS is still proposed, it is still very much intertwined with ETOPS. Their descriptions are very similar, and the fate of one relies on the other. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 05:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a further restriction in the ETOPS rules which state that the fuel must be the greater of the single engine burn to the ETOPS alternate or the 2 engine burn at 10,000 feet. This altitude is the maximum altitude the aircraft can operate in the event of a depressurization.

On flights from North America across the Pacific,, particularly the Hawaiian rouites, the 10,000 foot fuel burn is often more restrictive than the single engine fuel burn requirements.

The computation of the Equal Time Point (ETP) is based on the result.

Further, the aircraft must be equipped with enhanced equipment that increases the redundancy of certain systems, specifically hydraulics and electrics. A 3 or 4 engine aircraft has the engine driven generators and hydraulic pump redundancy, but a two engine aircraft does not. On the Boeing products a Hydraulic Motor Controlled Generator (HMG) is installed which provides this redundancy on 2 engine aircraft. Gandrews 03:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The FAA granted ETOPS 330. It will take some significant reworking of the article to fit this in: [1] [2] —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 04:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage has since been added to the article. -- Beland (talk) 01:14, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It is requested that one or more world maps be included in this article to improve its quality.

Would it be possible to add maps showing the range of ETOPS-90/120/180/etc. aeroplanes, so that you can see what kind of areas are excluded if you don't have the required certification? -- pne (talk) 11:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Circle Mapper displays ETOPS maps, but it notes that the area depends on aircraft speed on one engine, which will vary from aircraft to aircraft. Sommerfeld (talk) 23:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have found some excellent maps here, which says they have a compatible license. The individual image pages at [3], [4], and [5] have a different copyright tag, though, so perhaps we could contact the author for clarification. -- Beland (talk) 00:07, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Could some expert in this topic add to the article an interpretation of the 2007 FAA "final rule" as regards Satellite-Based Voice Communications? Is the result that aircraft now must have voice SATCOM to fly some routes? (sdsds - talk) 04:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added to the article; thanks for the suggestion. -- Beland (talk) 01:30, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This section makes no sense at all, for a number of reasons:

1. The Rolls-Royce Conway was a low-bypass turbofan (the first to reach production, in fact), not a turbojet. The original contributor is right; the Rolls-Royce Conway is a turbo-jet because all marks has a set of fixed inlet guide vanes in front of the first stage of the low pressure compressor. It was however, the world's first by-pass turbojet in commercial service. 81.110.185.32 (talk) 18:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. The Boeing 727 first began commercial operations in 1964, the same year the “60-minute rule” was allegedly waived, so the waiver can't have been based on the 727's “excellent record”.
3. It was designed for the Pratt & Whitney JT8D, not the Conway, though some later models were retrofitted with Rolls-Royce Tay high-bypass turbofans in the early 1990s.
4. The Boeing 737 first began commercial operations in 1967, after the “60-minute rule” was allegedly waived.
5. Like the 727, it was initially designed for the Pratt & Whitney JT8D. Boeing later switched to the CFM56.
6. The only airliners that flew with Conway engines were the four-engine Boeing 707, Douglas DC-8 and Vickers VC10.

DES (talk) 21:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the offending text had already been removed; I just removed the rest as it was unreferenced. -- Beland (talk) 01:35, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot say the route Sao Paulo - Cape Town is outside Etops since it is flied commercially by a B777-300ER.

--177.166.134.117 (talk) 10:31, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like that route might be economical under ETOPS-180; it's unclear what time frame the article is talking about, and that claim is unclear and unreferenced, so I have tagged it. -- Beland (talk) 01:39, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As not only the single engine flight time endurance (60 min, 180 min etc), but also the single engine cruise speed is needed for calculating the geographical no-go zones for a certain aircraft type, perhaps a section should be added elaborating on the latter Tavernsenses (talk) 10:04, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tavernsenses: This is now clarified in the intro and body; feel free to add a section if you want the article to discuss this in more detail. -- Beland (talk) 01:18, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article says that "...although LAN (which had acquired A340s solely for its Sydney-Santiago route)..." which seems pretty weird to me because I have been flying by LAN A340s to/from Madrid for several years (before they put 787 on this flight). 78.128.198.193 (talk) 17:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This text has since been removed from the article. -- Beland (talk) 01:19, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In the section "Early ETOPS experience" of the article, there is a picture of a 767 with the caption "Boeing 767-300ER, the ETOPS pioneer". However, I'm pretty sure that the first ETOPS aircraft was the A300 which became ETOPS compliant in 1977. Can somebody please find reliable a source and correct the mistake? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csace22003 (talk • contribs) 11:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:56, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even Airbus seems inconsistent about whether they were first!

• On the history section of their webpage, they say: "In 1977, the A300B4 became the first “ETOPS compliant” aircraft".
• In this document from Airbus Customer Services, they say: "Airbus operators have been operating their A300 twinjet aircraft across the North Atlantic, the Bay of Bengal and the Indian Ocean under the 90-minute ICAO rule since 1976. However, ETOPS officially began in 1985 with the newly issued ETOPS criteria. In 1985, the first ETOPS operations (90 minutes) were made in February by TWA with a 767 and in June by Singapore Airlines with an A310."

So depending on who at Airbus you ask, ETOPS either began in the 1970's with Airbus or in the 1980's with Boeing. 2601:602:A080:1240:25D2:A198:3FB7:1A99 (talk) 17:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the end of the intro, the article mentions that government owned aircraft do not have to adhere to ETOPS; however, there is no source for this and I see no reason to believe they don't apply to military aircraft? Xeoknight (talk) 03:42, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The clue is in the name of the name of the organisation administering ETOPS.

ICAO is the International CIVIL Aviation Organisation. Military aircraft fly by their own rules. WendlingCrusader (talk) 10:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found a source as requested. -- Beland (talk) 00:25, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I read Wikipedia a lot (multiple times per day) and this has got to be one of the worse articles I've ever come across, at least for someone such as myself who doesn't know much about the subject. More than three quarters through the article I finally found this line "For example, if an aircraft is rated for ETOPS-180, it means that it is able to fly with full load and just one engine for three hours." Some kind of explanation like this needs to be near the beginning of the article. 185.20.212.44 (talk) 21:35, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have added this as requested. Thanks for helping make articles accessible to more readers! -- Beland (talk) 00:16, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]