FAA approves A350-900 flight for longer diversion time

The United States’ Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has approved the Airbus A350-900 for ETOPS (Extended-range Twin-engine aircraft Operations) ‘beyond 180 minutes’ diversion time.

This approval means that Airbus A350-900 will be able to fly up to five hours using one engine in the event of a breakdown, being able to carry more transoceanic routes.

This approved of A350 XWB longer diversion time is by both European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and the FAA for beyond 180 minutes ETOPS.
This FAA approval also includes provisions for up to ‘ETOPS 300min’, corresponding to a maximum diversion distance of 2,000 nautical miles (nm) at one-engine-inoperative speed under standard atmospheric conditions.

According to FAA, later this year, once the type accumulates additional in-service experience, it will be granted a further provision for ‘ETOPS 370min’, which will extend the maximum diversion distance up to 2,500nm.

It added that the ETOPS 300min option will, in particular, facilitate more efficient transoceanic routes across the North and Mid-Pacific, such as from South-East Asia to US, and Australasia to the United States.

Meanwhile, FAA noted that operators flying on existing routes (currently flown with up to 180 minute diversion time) will be able to traverse straighter more fuel efficient flight paths with lower CO2 emissions, while also allowing access to more en-route diversion airports if needed.

Currently, FAA has proposed a $162,500 civil penalty against Airbus Defence and Space of Madrid, Spain, for allegedly violating the Hazardous Materials Regulations.

FAA alleged that on May 25, 2015, Airbus knowingly offered an undeclared hazardous material for shipment on a passenger-carrying aircraft from Seville, Spain, to Miami, Fla. The shipment contained two Protective Breathing Equipment Units, each of which contained a chemical oxygen generator.

The chemical is an oxidizer, which can cause or enhance the combustion of other materials. The Hazardous Materials Regulations prohibit transporting these devices as cargo on passenger-carrying aircraft.

FAA also alleged that the shipment was not accompanied by shipping papers indicating the hazardous nature of the contents and was not properly packaged, marked, or labeled, and that Airbus failed to provide emergency response information with the shipment.