Tuesday, 9/25/07

ETOPS Workshop: 13:00-14:30

Moderators: Mike Mock (Boeing), Gene Cameron (United) and J.D. Gomes (Boeing)

Attendees:

Dell Adams Boeing

Bertrand Musson Emirates Airways
Lawrence Tougas United Airlines
Atholl Buchan Oasis Hong Kong
Michael Shirkey Boeing
Shalom Ringul El Al
Hakan Selquk Ozer Turkish Airlines
Tim Pevreal Royal New Zealand Air Force
Craig Abela Royal New Zealand Air Force
Jovan Naumov Qantas
Ralph Saminaden Air Seychelles
Chen Sznchih China Airlines
Takashi Kondo All Nippon Airways
Adrian Jakobovic Jetstar Airways
Mike Jurgensen FedEx
Joerg Rohwer Lufthansa Technik
John Novelli American Airlines
Wally Rordon World Airways
Christopher Hill Delta Air Lines
Matthias Kruedener Condor
Russell Dranzfelder United Airlines
David Sager Northwest Airlines
Tim Runnette US Air Force
Frank Siegers Air New Zealand
S. Vandendviessche Arkefly
Doug Desrochers US Navy
John Seuhlerize US Navy
Paul Remington US Navy
Bob Murphy Boeing
Marty Blackford Boeing
Richard Magis Privatair
Marc Monod Privatair
Chuck Shure Boeing

1/28/2008 Page 1 of 11
Tuesday, 9/25/07
ETOPS Workshop: 13:00-14:30

Q. An opening question was posed to the audience by Boeing as to “Who is actively

pursuing an ETOPS Operational Approval and what sort of issues were they
encountering?”

Response: Mike Jurgensen (FedEx); said that FedEx is applying for ETOPS Operational
approval. One of the issues they are having is on 16 hour flights, the accuracy of the
wind predictions toward the end of the flight is big challenge. He also stated that getting
changes made to their Computer Flight Plan was difficult because their IT group sends
requests to the Flight Plan Provider to generate the final output and it takes a long time
and many iterations to accomplish. He also noted that FedEx had asked their vendor to
show them sample ETOPS flight plans that current operators were using and they were
surprised by the wide variation they found between different airlines formats. They
varied from extremely brief outputs to “volumes” of information.

Gene Cameron replied that United was fortunate in that they had their own flight
Planning system when they began ETOPS so making a format that they were happy with
was fairly straight forward. And now the new Flight Planning Vendor that they will use
(f:wz), is very anxious to please as United is their first major US carrier. As a result, f:wz
is providing good turnaround on United’s specifications and change requests. United
hopes that the new system will be fully operational in one year.

Q. Frank Siegers (Air New Zealand); What is your view of the state of readiness of the
flight planning systems to calculate fuel based on the new rules 5% wind component
requirement? ANZ uses Jeppesen as a flight plan vendor. Are they ready?

A. Mike Mock replied Boeing was not aware of the current capabilities or plans of all the
various flight planning vendors around the world. However, Mike also noted that Boeing
is aware that Jeppesen is working on implementing the new rules and that they presented
some interim workaround schemes at the Singapore ETOPS Conference that was held in
June of 2007.

Mike Shirkey (Boeing) asked the audience “how many of them were current ETOPS
operators” (almost all of the attendees were), and “how many of them had contacted their
flight planning vendor regarding their plans for incorporation of the new ETOPS rules?”
The answer was that very few had. Boeing encourages all current ETOPS operators to
pursue changes to their ETOPS flight plans to reflect the new Critical Fuel Scenario relief
at their earliest opportunity. The 5% of wind value instead of 5% of the Diversion Fuel;
no Missed Approach; and applying the adjustments to the Cruise portion of the Diversion
should be fairly easy for them to accomplish quickly. The reduced icing penalty
calculation may take longer. It should be noted that operators should NOT implement
changes to their Critical Fuel Scenario Calculation methodology without first gaining
approval from their POI or local Regulatory Authority.

1/28/2008 Page 2 of 11
Tuesday, 9/25/07
ETOPS Workshop: 13:00-14:30

Q. Hakan Ozer (Turkish Airlines); Are there many questions that need to be interperated
on the new rules?

A. Gene Cameron replies that they (United) put the rules in place on day one. (See
previous question answer). Mike Mock added that additional guidance and interpretation
are provided in the revised AC120-42B.
Mike Shirkey added that if you are already approved for 180 minute ETOPS, then the
new rules are relief. The new rules will add new requirement to your operation only if
you plan to operate ETOPS beyond 180 minutes.

Q. Bertrand Musson (Emirates Airways): What is the effect of the new rule on 4 engine
airplanes, and are there any provisions for terrain clearance for selecting alternates? They
(Emirates) use LEDO and they do not take terrain into account.

A. Mike Mock replied that the terrain clearance requirements are already in the
regulations. Frank (ANZ) added that ETOPS is a fuel calculation and not a terrain
calculation. Mike Shirkey asked the audience how many of the attending operator’s
flight planning vendors performed a Diversion or “off-route terrain analysis” as a part of
their current flight plans. Answer: None do more than a basic “on-route MEA
compliance”. It is up to the operator to perform terrain analysis that complies with rules
such as 121.191, 121.193, and Decompression escape routes over high terrain. Although
these analyses are not ETOPS requirements, they must still be accomplished on ETOPS
flights and non-ETOPS flights as a consequence of other regulatory requirements.

Q. Mike Jurgensen (FedEx) noted, related to critical fuel, they plan to do a

decompression diversion at FL250 with their freighter aircraft. Can they calculate their
decompression critical fuel based on this higher altitude?

A. Mike Mock replied that a Critical Fuel Scenario analysis at FL250 should be
acceptable for the freighters, as long as they have sufficient oxygen for the crew and
supernumerary personnel. He also noted that BAB added supplemental oxygen on their
777 aircraft to allow intermediate Level-Off at FL140 for 30 minutes in accordance with
JAA oxygen rules.

Q. (Name not stated); Please elaborate on the icing fuel planning.

A. The new ETOPS Critical Fuel Scenario includes a change to the accountability for
icing forecast during a potential ETOPS diversion. The icing correction is to be the
greater of:
1) The fuel required to account for use of the Engine & Airframe Anti-Ice Systems
for 100 % of the forecast icing exposure time or

1/28/2008 Page 3 of 11
Tuesday, 9/25/07
ETOPS Workshop: 13:00-14:30

2) The fuel required to account for ice accumulation on the unheated portions of the
airframe plus use of the Engine & Airframe Anti-Ice Systems for 10 % of the
forecast icing exposure time.

Gene Cameron (United) noted that to take advantage of this reduction in diversion fuel,
each operator will need to come up with a method to determine the icing exposure time
percentage. Some flight planning vendors are working on methods to automate the
determination of forecast icing exposure times. All operators should coordinate closely
with their flight plan provider to ensure that the benefits of these reduced fuel
requirements are correctly implemented in their flight plan formats.

Q. Frank Siegers (Air New Zealand) asked how the other rules look in comparison to the
FAA rules.

A Mike Mock answered that most of the other major rule making bodies (ICAO, EASA,
CASA, Transport Canada) have draft and/or final rules out that are pretty similar to most
of the new FAA rules. There are differences however which may or may not get
harmonized over the next year or two. For instance, the CASA’s Australian rules define
a new acronym. They will use Extended Diversion Time Operations (EDTO) instead of
ETOPS, and will work to a 90 minute EDTO threshold instead of 60 minutes. Transport
Canada has issued a new version of TP6327E which agrees with most of the new FAA
rules but does not include applicability to aircraft with more than 2 engines. The latest
proposed Draft NPA’s from Europe are similar to the new FAA rules in most areas for 2-
engine airplanes.

Q. Adrian Jakobovic (Jetstar Airways) asks if the diversion time from the ETP are based
on single-engine-speed or critical fuel scenario ?

A. Gene Cameron (United) replies that it is based on single-engine-speed. However, as

an expansion to Gene’s reply, we offer the following additional explanation:

Equal Time Points (ETP) are determined as the point at which the diversion time to the
closest two ETOPS Alternate Airports is equal, at the decompression altitude (typically
FL100), and as corrected for the forecast winds and temperatures of the day. For the vast
majority of ETOPS operators over the past 22 years, the speed used to calculate the actual
diversion time has been the Approved one-engine-inoperative speed used to determine
their Area of Operation circle distances. In other words, the operator’s flight track had to
remain within the Approved Area of Operation Circles, (which were determined at the
one-engine-inoperative cruise altitude), but the decompression diversion time that was
printed on the computer flight plan was determined at FL100, and could be longer than
the operator’s Approved ETOPS Diversion Time. Considerable confusion on this point
has been experience by new operators and regulatory authorities thru the years, and the
new FAA Draft ETOPS Advisory Circular AC 120-42B, contains a concise interpretation
of this issue in Paragraph 205.(e), which says:

1/28/2008 Page 4 of 11
Tuesday, 9/25/07
ETOPS Workshop: 13:00-14:30

“205.e. Actual Diversion Time. Actual diversion time may exceed the authorized
diversion time as long as the flight is conducted within the authorized ETOPS
Area of Operation, and complies with the requirements of §121.633.”

The last line of this interpretative paragraph also specifically extends the applicability of
this policy to the new Beyond-180-Minutes ETOPS Time Limited Systems Requirements
as stated in §121.633(b). It is further clarified in last sentence of §205.c.(a) and in
§205.c.(b):
“205.c.(a). …Finally, for the actual flight, the operator’s flight planning must be
within the airplane systems capability for the selected ETOPS alternate airports
on the planned route based on diversion times that are calculated using known or
forecast winds and temperature conditions.
205.c.(b) As a minimum, the certificate holder must ensure that the time-limited
systems requirements of §121.633(b) are met at the equal-time points between
ETOPS alternates determined by the most limiting en route fuel supply
requirements of §121.646 (b), commonly referred to as the ETOPS critical fuel
scenario….”

So the brief answer given in the workshop may not have conveyed the full scope of the
ETP diversion time issue. Under the new FAA rules, it is assumed that the operator will
show compliance with the Time-Limited-Systems requirements of §121.633 from the
traditional decompression ETP’s, thereby avoiding the confusing potential of a crew
having to deal with three different ETP’s for each pair of ETOPS Alternate Airports. In
the rare event that the diversion times from the decompression ETP exceeds the
authorized Time-Limited System capability, the dispatcher will have to adjust the route
of flight to be closer to the affected alternate airports, such that the required diversion
time is met.

Q. (Name not stated); What are the systems defining limit times?

A. J.D. Gomes (Boeing) replied that Boeing is still in the process of defining this
requirement. Possible systems that might limit a Beyond-180-Minute ETOPS Diversion
Time are Fire suppression, Oxygen, and Oil Consumption.

Q. Ralph Saminaden (Air Seychelles) asks if the new regulations will require a change to
their island reserves?

A. Gene Cameron replied that although island destinations are sometimes the last ETP
airport in an ETOPS flight, the normal fuel planning requirements for “Island Reserves”
are not affected. Per FAR 121.645(c), if there is no Destination Alternate available, the
planned Fuel-on-Board at dispatch must include an additional 2 hours of fuel at normal
cruising fuel consumption rates.

1/28/2008 Page 5 of 11
Tuesday, 9/25/07
ETOPS Workshop: 13:00-14:30

Q. Richard Magis (Privatair) asked if there is any chance of relief on the start requirement
for the 737 APU in the ETOPS sector?

A. Mike Mock replied that Boeing is working on relief based on statistical inflight start
reliability of the 737NG APU.

1/28/2008 Page 6 of 11
Tuesday, 9/25/07
ETOPS Workshop: 15:00-16:30

Moderators: Mike Mock (Boeing), Gene Cameron (United) and J.D. Gomes (Boeing)

Attendees:

Dell Adams Boeing

Geoff Clark Virgin Atlantic
Michael Shirkey Boeing
Jorge Gariazzo LAN
Carlos Phillips Delta Air Lines
Joseph A. Emuang MAS
Wee Y C MAS
Steve Delson Aloha
Ajay Rajbinshi Oman Air
Masahiko Yamamura Air Nippon
Hsing Ping Whang China Airlines
Miroslaw Romanduski LOT
Nathaniel Leroux Air Canada
Andy Broomer-Tormey XL Airways
Worku Daniel Ethiopian Airlines
Selino S. Jalalon Philippine Airlines
Brian Almond Oasis Hong Kong
Matthew Tang WestJet Airlines
Mike Baigent Skyservice Airlines
Douglas Sinclair Zoom Airlines
Jorge Torres Aero Mexico
Leopoldo Espinosa Masair Cargo
Andeii Beregelia Aerosvit Airlines
Robin d’Erlangfu Jet2.com
Bob Bradshaw Jet2.com
Michael Kellemer Boeing
Maru Terry Jet2.com
Marc Brodbeck United
Chris Meterko Continental
Ravin Agarwal Continental
Mark Songhurst SITA
Joseph Gouachissi Cameroon Airlines
Bill Gardner Boeing
Steve Yip Cathay Pacific

1/28/2008 Page 7 of 11
Tuesday, 9/25/07
ETOPS Workshop: 15:00-16:30

An initial question was posed by Boeing to the audience as to “Who is actively pursuing
an ETOPS Operational Approval and what sort of issues were they encountering ?”

Response: Bob Bradshaw (Jet2.com) is making an application for ETOPS Operational

Approval. They have no specific destinations yet but generally are looking at North
Atlantic operations UK to US. Jet2.com has a fleet of 8 757 airplanes and are working to
CAP513 standards (UK).

Mike Mock asked if Jet2.com was indeed anticipating that their ETOPS approval would
be in accordance with CAP513 or the new EASA requirements for ETOPS. Bob
responded that it was his understanding that the UK CAA would be using CAP513 for
their approval.

Mike Mock (Boeing) asked the audience the same question that was posed in the 1st
workshop session, regarding “how many of them were current ETOPS operators” (almost
all of the attendees were), and “how many of them had contacted their flight planning
vendor regarding their plans for incorporation of the new ETOPS rules?” The answer
was that very few had. Boeing encourages all current ETOPS operators to pursue
changes to their ETOPS flight plans to reflect the new Critical Fuel Scenario relief at
their earliest opportunity. The 5% of wind value instead of 5% of the Diversion Fuel; no
Missed Approach; and applying the adjustments to the Cruise portion of the Diversion
should be fairly easy for them to accomplish quickly. The reduced icing penalty
calculation may take longer. It should be noted that operators should NOT implement
changes to their Critical Fuel Scenario Calculation methodology without first gaining
approval from their POI or local Regulatory Authority.

Gene Cameron (United) noted that Marc Brodbeck (United) has worked closely with
their new flight planning service (f:wz) and that they expect to have the system do many
functions such as picking ETOPS Alternates, verifying weather validity windows, and
other factors automatically.

Jorge Gariazzo (LAN) noted that they plan to operate Buenos Aires to Madrid route with
a 767 and 120 minute ETOPS.

1/28/2008 Page 8 of 11
Tuesday, 9/25/07
ETOPS Workshop: 15:00-16:30

Q. (ACN ?) Will the new Canadian rules (TP6327E) let you take advantage of the new
critical fuel?

A. Mike Mock stated that the version of the Canadian ETOPS regulation that Boeing had
reviewed did in fact have the same ETOPS Critical Fuel Scenarios as the FAA rules.

Q. (Name not stated); Is there a harmonization group between EASA and FAA?

A. Gene Cameron (United) replied that there was significant effort to harmonize through
most of the ARAC process, but the effort seemed to slow down near the end.

Boeing will continue to work with the regulatory authorities in Europe and other parts of
the world to harmonize their ETOPS rules to the greatest extent possible.

Q. Marc Brodbeck (United) Is it really necessary to have CAT 7 fire fighting capability
at the ETOPS alternate airports?

A. Gene Cameron (United) described the historical background from the 207-Minute
Policy that lead to the Category 7 RFFS requirement for Beyond 180-Minute ETOPS.
The new rule 121.106 does require the flight track to remain within the Authorized
Maximum Diversion Time of an Adequate Airport with at least Category 7 RFFS.
However it is important to note that the ETOPS Alternate Airports listed in the Flight
Plan/Release only have to have an RFFS of Category 4 or higher. Gene Cameron
(United) noted that off-site municipal fire fighting resources can be used in determining
the RFFS Category as long as they can respond within 30 minutes notification of an
impending diversion.

Mike Mock (Boeing) asked if operators were currently monitoring NOTAMs for reduced
RFFS levels. None of the operators present responded with a yes. Mike also noted that
Jeppesen is looking at maintaining RFFS as part of their airport database.

Q. Ajay Rajbinshi (Oman Air) asks if they will get APU start relief in the new rule?

A. Mike Mock (Boeing) replied that No, the new ETOPS Rules do not change the
requirement for the 737 to have the APU running during the ETOPS portion of the flight.
This is a model specific certification/CMP issue. However, Mike also noted that Boeing
is working on relief based on statistical inflight start reliability of the 737NG APU.

1/28/2008 Page 9 of 11
Tuesday, 9/25/07
ETOPS Workshop: 15:00-16:30

Q. Ajay Rajbinshi (Oman Air) also asks why did the FAA not shift the ETOPS threshold
to 90 minutes?

A. Gene Cameron (United) answered that the 60 Minute ETOPS threshold was discussed
at length during the ARAC process. In the end, the concerns of the pilot associations and
the possible effects that allowing the Northern portions of the North Atlantic Track
System to become Non-ETOPS might have on World Fleet Reliability Statistics resulted
in the 60 minute threshold remaining in the rule.

Q. Ajay Rajbinshi (Oman Air) then asks if the Australian EDTO (Extended Diversion
Time Operations) has gone to a 90 minute threshold ?

A. Mike Mock (Boeing) answered Yes, the Australian CASA has a 90 minute threshold
for EDTO, as long as the aircraft in question has at least a 90 minutes ETOPS Type
Design Approval. Otherwise, the EDTO Threshold time is 60 Minutes.

Q. Andy Broomer-Tormey (XL Airways) asked if the new ETOPS rules change the
requirements for pre departure service checks ? has the extended time changed at transit
checks?

A. Mike replied In general, the new ETOPS rules do not change the basic requirement to
perform an ETOPS Pre-Departure Service Check (EPDSC) prior to each ETOPS flight.
The exception to this requirement is for ETOPS performed under 75-Minute
authorization in the Western Atlantic or a 90-Minute authorization in Micronesia where
an EPDSC is not required on the return leg of an ETOPS flight.

Q. Andy Broomer-Tormey (XL Airways) stated they use 400 nm for their diversion
distance and wondered how Boeing was showing 430 nm for the 737NG examples used
in the presentation.

A. Mike Shirkey (Boeing) explained that the UK CAA historically has used a single set
generic Area of Operation distances for all operators which do not include the effect of
Driftdown. These “standard” circle distances are 400, 800, & 1200 nm for 60, 120, &
180-minute ETOPS. The Area of Operation distances that were shown in the Boeing
presentations do account for the actual performance capability of each airframe/engine
combination and include the effects True Airspeed variation that occurs during the
engine-out driftdown maneuver. These Area of Operation distances are typically
published in the Boeing Flight Planning and Performance Manuals (FPPM), Page 2.4.1.

Gene Cameron stated that f:wz builds variable circle speeds into United’s flight planning
engine.

1/28/2008 Page 10 of 11
Tuesday, 9/25/07
ETOPS Workshop: 15:00-16:30

Q. Steve Yip (Cathay Pacific) asks if their 3 and 4 engine airplanes must be certified for
ETOPS.

A. Mike Mock (Boeing) responded that aircraft with more than 2 engines that are
manufactured after 2015 must be ETOPS Type Design Approved to be used in ETOPS
service. Aircraft manufactured prior to Feb 15, 2015 do not require an ETOPS Type
Design certification and operator’s of these aircraft will not have to comply with
121.633(c). However, the upgraded fire suppression system capability must be installed
and the associated flight planning limitations of 121.633(b)(1) must be accounted for on
all aircraft with more than two-engines no later than February 15, 2013.

Q. Geoff Clark (Virgin Atlantic) noted that the Boeing ETOPS Design Capabilities and
Objectives Chart showed the787 as capable of 330 minute ETOPS. Virgin would like
assurance that Boeing are in fact, building it out to 330 minutes.

A. J. D. Gomes (Boeing) replied that Boeing’s goal is to build the 787 to be capable of
330-minute ETOPS.

Q. Geoff Clark (Virgin Atlantic) asks if the 2015 rule affects all Boeing airplanes?

A. Mike Mock (Boeing) replied that all Boeing aircraft with more than 2-engines,
manufactured after Feb 15, 2015 will have to have an ETOPS Type Design approval to
be use in ETOPS service. It is Boeing’s intention to accomplish this for the 747-8. All
aircraft with more than 2 engines, manufactured prior to Feb 15, 2015, do not require an
ETOPS Type Design certification to be used in ETOPS service.

Q. Geoff Clark (Virgin Atlantic) asked the panel’s opinion of the new Tri-Quad
requirements.

A. Gene Cameron (United) replied the he didn’t feel there was a demonstrated need for
the Tri-Quad rules but Twins would be around a lot longer, and the improvements to the
rules for Twins would offset the new Quad requirements.

Mike Mock (Boeing) noted that the new Tri-Quad requirements provided alignment and
consistency with historical Twin ETOPS requirements. All aircraft are exposed to
diversions due to decompression and or cargo fires, independent of the number of
engines.

Notes scribed this 26th day of September, 2007 by Dell Adams.

1/28/2008 Page 11 of 11