# Commercial flights over remote areas **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [November 1, 2018, 12:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/commercial-flights-over-remote-areas/823831 "2018-11-01T12:33:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2018, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/commercial-flights-over-remote-areas/823831/21 "2018-11-03T23:21:58Z")
With the ultra reliability of some engines these days (i.e., GE115), have we reached a point where the FAA and other governing entities could theoretically abolish ETOPS entirely for certain jetliners (i.e., A330, 777, A350, 787) and say “You can fly however you want” and commercial air travel would still be just about as safe as before? ---
**Author:** ![Melbourne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5e925/32.png) [@Melbourne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Melbourne)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2018, 9:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/commercial-flights-over-remote-areas/823831/22 "2018-11-04T09:30:08Z")
> [@bizerta](#): > > I kept thinking: if we were to go down, how long before anyone at all would be able to even get to us let alone rescue us. > > My first question is: Are there commercial flights that go that close to the south pole (e.g. New Zealand to Africa -or- South America to Australia) Are there places other than the poles that are nearly as remote as the poles? Air NZ used to run commercial (sight-seeing) flights down to the edge of the continent. Around the McMurdo Station area. It took about 12 hours to locate the crash site. That was made easier because the area is pretty bare down there and they were within radar range of McMurdo Station when they stopped. ---
**Author:** ![MikeS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/919ad9/32.png) [@MikeS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MikeS)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2018, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/commercial-flights-over-remote-areas/823831/23 "2018-11-04T14:14:06Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > With the ultra reliability of some engines these days (i.e., GE115), have we reached a point where the FAA and other governing entities could theoretically abolish ETOPS entirely for certain jetliners (i.e., A330, 777, A350, 787) and say “You can fly however you want” and commercial air travel would still be just about as safe as before? The [A350-900](https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-releases/en/2014/10/easa-certifies-a350-xwb-for-up-to-370-minute-etops.html) can be certified for up to 2500 nautical miles (~4600 km) of ETOPS distance (370 minutes—over 6 hours!—at 405 knots.) With that kind of range, [only a small sliver of Antarctica is inaccessible](http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?MS=wls&DU=mi&E=370&EV=405&EU=kts), and very few commercial flights would want to go there anyhow unless someone wants to establish non-stop flights between [Johannesburg–Auckland or Buenos Aires–Jakarta](http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?MS=wls&MP=o&MC=75S60E&DU=mi&E=370&EV=405&EU=kts). A certification to fly “anywhere” would be something like ETOPS 420 for the Airbus 350, which is apparently something they considered early in the design phase. But apparently there wasn’t a market for such ultra-long-range airliners. ---
**Author:** ![ArslanWilson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/6de8d8/32.png) [@ArslanWilson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ArslanWilson)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2018, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/commercial-flights-over-remote-areas/823831/24 "2018-11-05T03:24:53Z")
> [@silenus](#): > > Welcome to the Dope, **Arslan**. Stick around. Your post was very informative and constructive. Thanks, man. Long time, first time, all that. I like that I learn something new almost every time I’m here. > [@Velocity](#): > > With the ultra reliability of some engines these days (i.e., GE115), have we reached a point where the FAA and other governing entities could theoretically abolish ETOPS entirely for certain jetliners (i.e., A330, 777, A350, 787) and say “You can fly however you want” and commercial air travel would still be just about as safe as before? ETOPS/EDTO all have several strata, and several individual components that make up that status. It isn’t just the Aircraft/Powerplant type. It’s also a company’s MX(maintenance) program, Engineering QA, Air Crew/Flight Ops training, Dispatch, and a host of other general qualifications. None of these are easy grants, and they are all somewhat burdensome to maintain. For (primarily) this reason, an airline will _not_ have ETOPS/EDTO status unless they have active routes that require it. A good example being Southwest Airlines in the US. They were just only recently granted their ETOPS certification. However, this does not apply to the entirety of their fleet (IIRC, this will be applicable only for their 737-8H4s, & 737MAX8s). This is why at my carrier, almost one third of our GE90-115 powered 77Ws are rated only to ETOPS 180. The type can be certificated all the way to 370 in the condition we have. However, the ones we maintain at 180 are also our high density ‘regional’ configuration birds, and will never see far off places like N. Am, S. Am, etc. Most of our A333s are similar as well. Since the crews are also more expensive with that rating, it makes sense to not pay for what we’re not using, I suppose. Theoretically, yes, twin engine aircraft have become reliable enough to abolish the rules here, but due to the need for somewhat intense regulatory scrutiny where these (and actually all, if we’re being honest), flights are concerned, that will never go away. In fact, EDTO (This is the Functional Equivalent of ETOPS for Non-US operators) is now being voluntarily applied by most operators of _ **four** _ engined aircraft as well (there are no tri-jets left in PAX service). The funny part of that is how long _that_ took. I say this because although it’s not commonly understood by the general public, twins are actually _more_ reliable than quads. Although ETOPS played a large part in that, it’s a trait that was already somewhat ‘baked in’ for twins. Simpy put, a four engined aircraft has a much higher risk of an uncontained engine failure damaging the other engine next to it. This has actually been demonstrated with a few high profile A388 incidents. Sorry again if that was somewhat long winded. > [@Xema](#): > > More commonly given as “Extended-range Twin-engine Operational Performance Standards”. Depends entirely on where and who you are. My three previous employers had our training manuals and standards as I’ve displayed up-thread. My current airline is not based in the USA and uses the ICAO Acro of _ **EDTO** _. This is not _true_ ETOPS in the way the FAA understands and applies it. It’s a combination of the EASA’s definitions of self same and _LROPS_, the latter being the (very simlilar) guidelines for Trijets, Quads, and the world’s only operational Six engined transport. I do not know what level of specificity the OP wants, so I try to keep these fairly basic. > [@MikeS](#): > > A certification to fly “anywhere” would be something like ETOPS 420 for the Airbus 350, which is apparently something they considered early in the design phase. But apparently there wasn’t a market for such ultra-long-range airliners. No, you’re right, there really isn’t. Currently, Perth - London Heathrow is longest flight on earth. Qantas can get away with this because they charge a hefty premium for avoiding stops in Singapore or Dubai. But the aircraft goes out (in both directions) incredibly weight restricted. With only about 190 seats (on a plane designed for up to 420) and _no_ below decks cargo, it’s a very expensive flight to operate given the return potential. The primary reason the 787, A350, A340, & 777 families are designed to fly as “far” as they do isn’t actually for the range itself. There are something like a dozen 7500nmi+ routes in the entire industry. The real reason for that capability is so that a plane doesn’t have to take a weight restrict for a more normal (maybe 4500-5000nmi) long haul flight. Especially if they’re coming out of somewhere hot & high, like Mexico City. And obviously ETOPS won’t help with that. I’ve seen first hand the capability evolution over the last few decades, and our overall dispatch reliability is something that would have been unheard of, even in the late 1990s. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/commercial-flights-over-remote-areas/823831.md?page=1)