Re: in-flight engine shutdown / antiquated ATC equip

From:         simonlc@ozemail.com.au (Simon Craig)
Organization: OzEmail Pty Ltd - Australia
Date:         22 Jun 95 03:07:31 
References:   1 2 3
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

> In any case, there is no requirement that an APU must be operable
> throughout the full envelope, just that power for electrical and
> hydraulic systems has more redundancy than just the two engines.
> Airbus did choose to meet this requirement on the A300 and A310
> via an APU that can operate throughout the envelope, with the hard
> part being starting the APU at altitude after an extended cold-soak.
> Boeing does not do this on the 767 (or 757), instead opting for a
> RAT (ram-air turbine).  While fortuitous for the Gimli Glider, this
> adds equipment (thus weight and added maintenance) vs the Airbus
> APU solution.  Nevertheless, Airbus uses a RAT on the A330 and also
> the A340.  (Obviously not for ETOPS on the A340!)

I'm pretty sure that with our 767s (Qantas) there *is* a requirement to
test the inflight starting capability of the APU (GTCP331-200ER) within a
certain number of sectors to remain, how should I say it,
"ETOPS-compliant".

Simon

simonlc@ozemail.com.au