Maintenance Programs Engineering Group

Customer Organization
Boeing Commercial Airplane Group

D621T401
Revision D
April 2014
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
 REVISION HIGHLIGHTS

REV
SYM DESCRIPTION DATE APPROVAL
O/R Original Release 8/1/1991

A Complete revision of document to provide more detailed explanations and 9/23/1994

examples of the various ETOPS maintenance requirements and program. All Prepared by
pages and some tables and figures were renumbered. H. Kinnison

Approved by
P. Ansdell
B Reorganized document layout and added new material. Enhanced outline of 4/1/1998
ETOPS Training (Appendix A); added ETOPS Manual Template (Appendix B). Prepared by
Added information on requirements for APU In-flight Start Program. Improved H. Kinnison
discussion throughout. Deleted unnecessary tables and graphics.
Approved by
P. Ansdell
C The purpose of this revision is to incorporate the new FAA ETOPS regulation as a 8/2008
result of 14 CFR 121.161 released January 15, 2007. Special emphasis was
placed on 14 CFR 121.374 that defines the ETOPS Maintenance Requirements
for operational approval. Additional guidance, based on ETOPS experience since
the original release of this document, has been added to the document to provide
Prepared by
further assistance to operators. Revision bars have been placed in the document
T. Towne
to indicate where the new ruling has impacted that particular chapter/section.

Reviewed by
J. LaMere

Approved by
B. McLoughlin

REV D D621T401 i
 REV
SYM DESCRIPTION DATE APPROVAL
D Added information to the Abstract section regarding airplanes that are 4/2014
manufactured beyond February 15, 2015 and the requirements needed for two-
engine passenger and cargo airplanes operating farther than 180-minutes ETOPS.

Updated the Acronyms list and deleted the Key Words portion of this chapter, as Prepared by
this information is no longer applicable.
T. Towne

Revised various sections of the document to improve guidance to ETOPS

operators. The document was also revised to include reference to the EASA
AMC20-6 Rev 2.FAA and EASA ETOPS regulation is the most widely used in the
industry and the intent is to change from an FAA centric document.
Reviewed by
J. LaMere
Added Table 3, ETOPS Approvals for Greater Than 180-Minute Type Certification,
and renumbered the remaining tables accordingly.

Approved by
J. Gomez-Elegido

ii D621T401 REV D
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

REVISION HIGHLIGHTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
TABLE OF CONTENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
ABSTRACT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
ACRONYMS AND KEY WORDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
1.0 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 Purpose of the Extended Operations (ETOPS) Guide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Existing FAA Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3 ETOPS Approval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.4 ETOPS Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.5 ETOPS Continuous Airworthiness Maintenance Program (CAMP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.6 Master Minimum Equipment List (MMEL) for ETOPS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.7 Maintenance Requirements and Guidelines for ETOPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.0 FAA Advisory Circular 120-42B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.1 Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.2 Basic Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.3 ETOPS Continuous Airworthiness Maintenance Program (CAMP) Requirements. . . . . . . 10
2.4 Other Maintenance Significant Chapters and Appendices to AC 120-42B . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.5 ETOPS Approval Methods as described in AC 120-42B Appendix 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.0 The Configuration, Maintenance and Procedures (CMP) Standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.1 Purpose and Scope. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.2 Variations in Format of CMP Standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.3 Contents and Format of the Boeing CMP Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.4 Contents and Format of the Douglas Products Division (DPD) CMP Document . . . . . . . . 19
3.5 ETOPS Guide Volume 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.6 CMP Revisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.0 ETOPS Significant Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.1 Definition of Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.2 Criteria for Selecting ETOPS Significant Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.0 Continuous Airworthiness Maintenance Program (CAMP) for ETOPS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5.2 Preparation for ETOPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5.3 Maintenance Program Changes for ETOPS (Two Engine/Airplane Combination) . . . . . . . . 27
6.0 Part 135 - Operating Requirements for ETOPS CAMP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
6.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
7.0 Appendix A: ETOPS Maintenance Training Program Outline. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
7.1 Introduction to ETOPS Maintenance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

REV D D621T401 iii

 7.2 Recurrent ETOPS Maintenance Training (Section II) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
7.3 Practical ETOPS Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
8.0 ETOPS Document Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
8.1 Purpose of the ETOPS Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
8.2 Purpose of the ETOPS Document Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
8.3 Regulatory Compliance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
8.4 Using the ETOPS Manual Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
8.5 Availability of Document on Computer Diskette . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

iv D621T401 REV D
 ABSTRACT

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) of the United States and the equivalent authorities throughout the
world limit the use of two-engine airplanes to routes that do not contain a point farther than 60 minutes flying
time (some areas 90 minutes), at one engine inoperative cruise speed, from an adequate airport. Approval to
deviate from this rule may be granted if (1) the airframe/engine combination being used has been approved by
the FAA (or other appropriate authority) for such flights; (2) the operator has established acceptable operations
and maintenance programs for such operations; and (3) the operator has been approved by the FAA (or other
applicable authority) to conduct such flights.
FAA approval can be given to an operator for flights up to 75, 90, 120, 138, 180, greater than 180, 207, 240, or
beyond 240-minute areas of operation from an ETOPS alternate airport. 14 CFR 121.374 issued January 16th,
2007, and FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 120-42B issued June 16th, 2008, establish the basic guidelines for
airline operations and maintenance programs. The FAA-approved Configuration, Maintenance and Procedures
(CMP) Standard for an approved two-engine airplane provides the necessary information needed to upgrade
an engine/airplane combination to the required Extended Operations (ETOPS) configuration.
The operator's maintenance, training and reliability programs must be supplemented to address ETOPS
requirements. Certain maintenance activities have been emphasized in order to (1) ensure that the airframe/
engine combination is maintained at its inherent (i.e., designed in) level of safety and reliability and (2) to
provide continuous monitoring of the airworthiness of ETOPS airplanes.
In addition to the above statement, the FAA and other national regulating authorities in the world have
restricted passenger airplanes with more than two engines to routes that do not contain a point farther than
180 minutes flying time at one engine inoperative cruise speed. Some authorities include cargo airplanes as
well. Airplanes for such operations that will be manufactured beyond February 15th, 2015 will require
operational approval from the appropriate authority. For these airplanes, operational programs are a
requirement; however, the ETOPS maintenance program as defined for two engine airplanes is not required.
ETOPS configuration is required through the applicable CMP. Airplanes that will not be manufactured beyond
this date will be exempt and approved for ETOPS.

REV D D621T401 v
 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

vi D621T401 BLANK
 ACRONYMS

AC Advisory Circular (FAA)

AD Airworthiness Directive
AFM Airplane Flight Manual
APU Auxiliary Power Unit

BCS Boeing Communication System

BITE Built-In Test Equipment

CAA Civil Aviation Authority (UK)

CAP Civil Aviation Publication (CAA)
CAMP Continuous Airworthiness Maintenance Program
CASS Continuous Analysis and Surveillance System
CBT Computer-Based Training
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CHDO Certificate Holding District Office
CMCC Centralized Maintenance Control Center
CMP Configuration, Maintenance and Procedures
CRT CMP Review Team
CSMS Customer Services and Material Support

DCAG Directeur General de l'Aviation Civile (France)

DDG Dispatch Deviation Guide
DFDAU Digital Flight Data Acquisition Unit
DMI Deferred Maintenance Item
DPD Douglas Products Division of Boeing

EASA European Aviation Safety Agency

EMC Engine Condition Monitoring
ECMP Engine Condition Monitoring Program
E/E Electrical/Electronics
EFIS Electronic Flight Instrument System
EICAS Engine Indicating and Crew Alerting System
EO Engineering Order
ETOPS Extended Operations

REV D D621T401 vii

 FAA Federal Aviation Administration (US)
FAK Fly-Away Kit
FADEC Full Authority Digital Engine Control (GE engines only)
FAR Federal Aviation Regulation
FCAA Foreign Civil Aviation Authorities
FIM Fault Isolation Manual
FQIS Fuel Quantity Indicating System

GE General Electric
GMM General Maintenance Manual

HMG Hydraulic Motor Driven Generator

ICA Instructions for Continued Airworthiness

IDG Integrated Drive Generator
IFSD In flight Shut Down
IL Information Leaflet (JAA)
IPC Illustrated Parts Catalog
IPD Illustrated Parts Data
ISC Industry Steering Committee

LN Line Number (Boeing manufacturing)

MCC Maintenance Control Center

MMEL Master Minimum Equipment List
MPD Maintenance Planning Data (Boeing airplanes)
MRs Maintenance Releases
MRB Maintenance Review Board Report
MSG Maintenance Steering Group

NOPAC North Pacific

NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

OAMP On Aircraft Maintenance Planning (MPD for DPD airplanes)

OAT Outside Air Temperature
OCC Operations Control Center

viii D621T401 REV D

 OCMP Oil Consumption Monitoring Program
OJT On-the-job Training

P&W Pratt & Whitney

PDSC Pre-Departure Service Check
PMC Power Management Control
PMI Principal Maintenance Inspector
PP&C Production, Planning and Control
PPM Policies and Procedures Manual
PSE Propulsion System Engineering
PSRAB Propulsion System Reliability Assessment Board (FAA)
PSU Passenger Service Unit

QEC Quick Engine Change

QRH Quick Reference Handbook

RII Required Inspection Items

RR Rolls Royce

SATCOM Satellite Communications

SB Service Bulletin
SL Service Letter
SOAP Spectrographic Oil Analysis Program

TRU Transformer Rectifier Unit

REV D D621T401 ix
 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

x D621T401 BLANK
 1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose of the Extended Operations (ETOPS) Guide

The ETOPS Guide, Volume II is provided to Boeing operators to assist them in understanding the requirements
for regulatory approval and continued airworthiness of the engine/airplane combinations used in "Extended
Operations" (ETOPS). ETOPS includes:
• All two-engine airplanes operated under Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations Part 121
(14 CFR Part 121) with planned diversion times greater than 60 minutes from an alternate airport
• All passenger operated airplanes with more than two engines operating under 14 CFR Part 121 with
planned diversion times greater than 180 minutes from an alternate airport, and
• Flight operations of all two-engine transport category turbine powered airplanes and all passenger-
carrying transport category turbine powered airplanes with more than two engines under 14 CFR Part 135
when more than 180 minutes from an alternate airport. It is important to note that the ETOPS
maintenance requirements specified in 14 CFR 121.374 are applicable only to two-engine configured
ETOPS operators. ETOPS Maintenance Program Guidelines for Part 135 operators of twin-engine
airplanes are defined in Appendix G of 14 CFR 135.364, and in Section 6 of this document.
The ETOPS Guide consists of three volumes:
1. Volume I – The CMP Supplement: This volume provides guidance information to the operator for
developing programs which meet the requirements of 14 CFR § 121.374. The first section supplements
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Configuration, Maintenance, and Procedures (CMP) Standard.
This standard is defined in Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs) governing ETOPS, and appears in
various forms depending on the airplane model and philosophy in place at the time (see the table on the
next page).
The FAA CMP Standard defines the ETOPS configuration requirements for engine and airframe systems.
Volume I of the ETOPS Guide provides additional information related to those requirements. Each line
entry in the CMP has a corresponding full page in Volume I to help the operator understand the reasoning
behind the requirement, but also provide information for incorporation. Some Boeing airplanes, defined
by their Line Number, have had the modification incorporated during manufacturing, while others will
require retrofit.
Additional support material and tools to help an operator develop his/her own ETOPS maintenance
program can be found in the appendices of this document. Appendix A is the Non-Approved and
Restricted ETOPS Parts List, provided to help the operator maintain ETOPS configuration. Appendix B is
the ETOPS Significant Systems Guide for intended to be used by the operator to develop his own
specific ETOPS Significant Systems List. Appendix C is the ETOPS Pre-Departure Service Check
(PDSC) Study, intended to be used as a guide for those operators developing their own ETOPS PDSC.
Separate documents are produced for each airplane model. Volume 1 of the 737NG ETOPS Guide
contains an additional section to Part D, Item 1b that outlines the requirement for the operators to use the
Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) in an on-demand capacity as opposed to running the APU during the entire
portion of the ETOPS flight. Document numbers for these documents are shown in the table on the
next page.
Volumes II and III, respectively, are the ETOPS Maintenance Program Guidelines (this document) and the
Operational Guidelines and Methods. The latest revision will always be located on the ETOPS web site,
at myboeingfleet.com, via the Extended Operations link (myboeingfleet.com/extended-operations).

REV D D621T401 1
 Table 1: CMP and ETOPS Guide, Volume I (CMP Supplement)

Model CMP Standard ETOPS Guide Volume I

717 MDC-04K9007 Not Available
737-200 D6-38091 Not Available
737-300/400/500 D6-38123 D6-38729
737-600/700/800/900 D044A007 D044A007-1
747-8 Not Available D926U568-05
(Placeholder until
ETOPS certification and the CMP
is created)
757 (all) D01 1N002 DO 11N006
767 (all) D6T11604 D6T11605
777 (all) D044W054 D044WO45
787 (all) D021Z002-01 D021Z001-02
MD80 MDC-K1629 Not Available

2. ETOPS Guide Volume II – Maintenance Program Guidelines: Volume II discusses the maintenance
program requirements set forth in Title 14 CFRs governing ETOPS and suggests ways in which the
operator can satisfy these requirements. In general, ETOPS will have the same requirements throughout
the world, but there may be local requirements that differ from country to country. Volume II includes a
brief discussion of the purpose and intent of the CMP, the ETOPS Guide Volume I (CMP Supplement),
and ETOPS regulations. An outline of the ETOPS Maintenance Training Program is provided in Section
7.0; Section 8.0 provides the ETOPS Document Template. These editable templates are available in
Word format on the Flight Operations web site or at myboeingfleet.com (myboeingfleet.com/extended-
operations) where operators will be able to manipulate the text and insert their own specific information.
Each template provides instructions on how to use it effectively; operators are encouraged to modify each
template to describe their own ETOPS Maintenance and ETOPS Maintenance Training Programs.
3. ETOPS Guide Volume III – Operational Guidelines and Methods: Volume III discusses the
requirements for flight operational approval for ETOPS as set forth in Title 14 CFRs governing ETOPS. It
also provides an outline of the submittal requirements for FAA approval of the Operational Plan. Volume
III does not contain any material related to maintenance; however, it is recommended that the flight and
maintenance programs be developed in parallel.
Volume I is revised on an annual basis or whenever the applicable CMP Standard is revised with critical data.
Revisions to Volume 1 may occasionally fall behind CMP revisions in order to maintain consistency between
the two documents. Because the CMP is an FAA-approved document, its revision date determines the date of
compliance. Volumes II and III are generic to all Boeing ETOPS operations and are revised as necessary.

2 D621T401 REV D
1.2 Existing FAA Rule

ETOPS For Two-Engine Airplanes

14 CFR § 121.161 states that "no certificate holder may operate a turbine engine powered airplane over a
route that contains a point farther than 60 minutes flying time from an adequate airport for airplanes with two
engines (in still air at normal cruising speed with one engine inoperative) or within an area designated by the
Administrator as an area of ETOPS applicability unless approved by the Administrator in accordance with
Appendix P of 14 CFR 121." The Polar areas are defined as operations above 78 degrees north latitude and
60 degrees south latitude and as an area of ETOPS applicability for all twin-engine airplanes operating beyond
60 minutes. ETOPS requirements are specified in the operator's approved maintenance and operations
programs. ETOPS must be authorized in the operator's operations specifications and conducted in
compliance with those sections of 14 CFR 121 applicable to ETOPS, including 14 CFR § 121.633.
The Administrator may approve ETOPS operations for various areas of operation in accordance with the
requirements and limitations specified in Appendix P of 14 CFR 121.

ETOPS For Airplanes with More Than Two Engines

14 CFR § 121.161 states that "no certificate holder may operate a turbine engine powered airplane over a
route that contains a point farther than 180 minutes flying time from an adequate airport for airplanes with more
than two engines (in still air at normal cruising speed with one engine inoperative) or within an area designated
by the Administrator as an area of ETOPS applicability unless approved by the Administrator in accordance
with Appendix P of 14 CFR 121." A Polar area is defined as operations above 78 degrees north latitude and
60 degrees south latitude. For passenger airplanes with more than two engines, the North Pole would be
considered an area of non ETOPS applicability but the South pole could be an area of ETOPS applicability
because ETOPS begins at operations beyond 180 minutes for these airplanes. ETOPS requirements are
specified in the operator's approved maintenance and operations programs. ETOPS must be authorized in the
operator's operations specifications and conducted in compliance with those sections of 14 CFR 121
applicable to ETOPS, including 14 CFR § 121.633.
Approvals may be granted for operators using aircraft with more than two engines while completing ETOPS
operations on a routine basis with maximum diversion times up to 240 minutes in any area of operations. For
all such operations, the nearest available ETOPS alternate airport within a 240-minute diversion time (in still air
at one engine inoperative speed) must be specified. If an ETOPS alternate airport is not available within
240 minutes, the nearest ETOPS alternate airport must be specified. In either case, the operator must
designate the nearest available ETOPS alternate airports along the planned route of flight. In all such
operations, Minimum Equipment List (MEL) limitations for ETOPS apply. In addition, the Fuel Quantity
Indicating System (FQIS) and SATCOM voice and SATCOM or HF Data Link (if installed) must be operational.
For company communications on such operations, operators must use the most reliable communications
technology available per 14 CFR § 121.99(c). For such operations, the airframe engine combination must be
ETOPS type design approved for the maximum authorized diversion time.

1.3 ETOPS Approval

ETOPS approval is a two step process. For the first step, the airplane manufacturer must obtain type design
approval from the FAA (or local approving authority) for each engine/airplane combination. The manufacturer
must show that the airframe and propulsion system combination for a given model can achieve a sufficient high
level of in-service reliability so that safe ETOPS operations can be conducted. Approval must be obtained for
each engine/airplane combination separately. Under certain conditions, an operator may get approval for other
diversion times, such as 138 minutes. This approval is awarded separately. In 138-minute diversion times, the
maintenance program is the same as for 120-minute or 180-minute diversion times (see Section 2.4.1). There
may be some configuration differences. Table 2 is a summary of the Boeing and Douglas Products Division
(DPD) airplanes currently approved for ETOPS by the FAA (February 2014).

REV D D621T401 3
Early 757 and 767 airplane models were approved for 120-minute diversion times, and later, for 180-minute
diversion times. Boeing's 737-200 through -500 models and DPD's MD-80 models (717 only for 75 minutes)
were limited to 120-minute diversion times only. The 737-600/700/700C/800/900/900ER (737NG) is approved
for up to 180-minute diversion times. All Boeing 777 airplanes powered with GE and Pratt and Whitney
engines are approved by the FAA for 330-minute diversion times after type design approval was issued by the
FAA, as defined by the CMP. It should be noted that there are additional requirements stated in the CMP and
MEL for operations beyond 180 minutes. At the time of this revision, the RR powered 777 airplane was in the
final stages of certification for operations greater than 180/207 minutes. Please review the associated
CMP document.
If the airline is not under the jurisdiction of the U.S. FAA, they must check with their own regulatory authority to
determine if the engine/airplane combination is approved under their rules. In many cases, the non-U.S.
regulatory authorities accept the FAA approval but the operator must verify this prior to making application
for ETOPS.
Approval of an engine/airplane combination for ETOPS is based upon the world fleet In-flight Shut Down
(IFSD) rate for that combination. The threshold rate for two-engine aircraft (calculated at a 12-month rolling
average) has been set by the FAA at 0.05 IFSD per 1000 engine hours for 120-minute diversion times,
0.02 IFSD per 1000 hours for 180/207-minute diversion times, and 0.01 IFSD per 1000 hours for beyond
180-minute diversion times (not to include 207). It is important to note that the values quoted here are for
engine certification and are not to be confused with the operator alert levels as stated in Section 5.3.9 of
this document.
The second step in the ETOPS approval process is that the operator must obtain operational ETOPS approval
from the regulatory authority. The operator must show that (1) it can operate the airplane safely under the
conditions of ETOPS and (2) it can maintain the airplane in the approved configuration with a high level
of reliability.

4 D621T401 REV D
 Table 2: ETOPS Approval as of February 2014

Airplane Model Engine Type 120-Minute Approval 180-Minute Approval CMP Standard
717 BR700-715A1-30 75-minute approval Rev New
BR700-715C1-30 only 05/05/04
MDC-04K9007
737-200 JT8D-9/-9A Dec. 1985 Rev Original
JT8D-15/-15A Dec. 1986 05/18/92
JT8D-17/-17A Dec. 1986 136-38901

737-300/400/500 CFM56-3 Nov. 1986* Rev C

Sep. 1990 08/14/95
D6-38123
737-600/700/800 CFM56-7B Sep. 10, 1999 Rev C
10/20/03
D044A007
737-700C CFM56-7B Aug. 31, 2000 Rev D
10/20/03
D044A007
737-900 CFM56-7B Apr. 17, 2001 Rev E
10/20/03
D044A007
737-900ER CFM56-7B April 20, 2007 Rev H
04/02/07
D044A007
757-200 RB211-535E4 Dec. 1986 Jul. 1990 Rev E
PW2037 Mar. 1990 Apr. 1992 09/11/03
PW2040 Mar. 1990 Apr. 1992 D011N002
PW2000 PF ** Jul. 1990 Apr. 1992
757-300 RB211-535E4 Jan. 1999 Rev E
RB211-535E4-B Jan. 1999 09/11/03
RB211-535E4-C Jul. 2001 D011N002
PW2000 Series Jun. 2002
767-200/300 CF6-80A/A2 Aug. 1985 Apr. 1989 Rev M
08/23/96
D6T11604
767-300 JT9D-7R4D/E May 1985 Apr. 1990 Rev M
JT9D-7R4E4 May 1985 Mar. 1991 08/23/96
RB211-524H Mar. 1991 Mar. 1993 D6T11604
May 1988 Apr. 1989
CF6-80C2- PMC
Mar. 1991 Jun. 1993
CF6-80C2-FADEC Apr. 1990 Oct. 1995
CF6-80C2B7F** Jul. 1993
PW4000
767-300 RB211-524H-T Series June 2001 Rev Q
Engines 06/15/01
D6T11604

REV D D621T401 5
 Airplane Model Engine Type 120-Minute Approval 180-Minute Approval CMP Standard
767-400ER CF6-80C2F June 2001 Rev P
09/29/99
D6T11604
777-200 GE90-76B Oct. 2, 1996 Rev D
GE90-85B/95B Feb. 5, 1997 08/20/03
GE90-94B Oct. 26, 2000 D044W054
PW4077/4084 May 30, 1995
PW4074 May 1, 1997
PW4077D/4074D Mar. 26,1997
PW4084D Aug. 18, 2003
PW4090 Mar. 6, 1997
PW4090-3 Dec. 23, 1999
777-200LR GE90-110B Feb. 2006 Rev H
08/23/96
D044W054
777-300 PW4090 June 12, 1998 Rev H
PW4098 Aug. 9, 1999 1/17/06
RB211-Trent 892-17 May 4, 1998 D044W054
RB211-Trent 884-17 Oct. 2003
RB211-Trent 884B-17 Oct. 2003
777-300ER GE90-115B Mar. 16, 2004 Rev E
3/2/04
D044W054
787-8 Trent 1000 August 20, 2011 Rev A
D021Z002-01
787-8 GEnx March 14, 2012 Rev C
D021Z002-01
MD-81/-82/-83/-88 JT8D-217C/-219*** MC-801-23 Rev D
Dated July 7, 1995 5/19/97
MDC-K1629

* Approval temporarily withdrawn by FAA in July 1989; reinstated in September 1990.

** Package Freighter
*** Any engine/airplane combination shown is configured to the CMP Standard.

6 D621T401 REV D
207-Minute ETOPS Capability – 15% Operational Increase for an Airplane Type Certificated at 180 Minutes
Most 777 and all 787 airplanes that are ETOPS certified to 180 minutes have time-limited system capability to
a minimum of 222 minutes and are capable of 207-minute ETOPS operational approval. Operators need only
comply with CMP requirements for an airplane type certificated to 180 minutes and must ensure the cargo fire
suppression capability is a minimum of 222 minutes. This 15% increase in operational capability is provided by
ETOPS regulation and is not an airplane certification requirement. Operators must achieve 207-minute
ETOPS operational approval from their local authority.

Table 3: ETOPS Approvals for Greater Than 180-Minute Type Certification

Greater Than
Airplane Model Engine Type 180-Minute Approval CMP Standard
777-200 GE90-85B/90B November 3, 2011 Rev V
777-200 GE-94B November 3, 2011 Rev V
777-200LR GE90-110B/115 November 3, 2011 Rev V
777-300ER GE90-115B November 3, 2011 Rev V
777F GE90-110B/115B November 3, 2011 Rev V
777-200 PW4084D/PW4090 October 5, 2012 Rev X
777-200 PW4090-3 October 5, 2012 Rev X

1.4 ETOPS Configuration

An ETOPS airplane differs from a non-ETOPS airplane in configuration, flight operations, and maintenance
aspects. 14 CFR 121-161 requires three sources of electrical power for ETOPS operations. The 757 and 767
airplanes are currently required to have a Hydraulic Motor Driven Generator (HMG) as a source of backup
power in the event of a loss of power from both Integrated Drive Generators (IDGs) until the APU is started and
running, supplying electrical power. It also provides flexibility at dispatch where the operator could dispatch on
a 120-minute route with one inoperative engine generator and an operable HMG, engine generator, and APU
driven generator.
The 737-2/3/4/500 series airplanes and the MD-80 series airplanes are not required to have an HMG. For
these airplanes, the CMP document requires that the APU be running during the entire ETOPS portion of the
flight. These airplanes are approved for 120-minute ETOPS with the 717 approved for 75 minutes.
The 737NG has been approved for up to 180-minute ETOPS without an HMG installation. The increased
diversion time is due to extensive analysis done around the reliability of the APU along with manufacturer
designed improvements. There are two options defined in the Demonstrated Capability section of the 737NG
CMP for ETOPS operation. The first option is for the APU to be operating in the ETOPS portion of the flight as
with the earlier model airplanes. The second option is to have an APU On-Demand program where the APU
will be started in the event of a failed engine driven generator and will provide back-up electrical power. Section
5.3.12 of this document describes the program requirements and provides guidance to operators who are
developing a program for this option. Guidance for developing an APU On-Demand Maintenance Program as
required by the CMP document is found in Part D of the 737NG ETOPS Guide Volume I.
The 757 and 767 airplanes evolved from a non-ETOPS design that has gone through improvements for each
of the ETOPS Significant Systems, including the APU. Improvements and reliability enhancements made to
the 757/767 APU and electrical generating systems were significant enough to initiate data collection to verify

REV D D621T401 7
the feasibility of ETOPS operation without an HMG. Each model needed to be evaluated separately to verify
APU and electrical generating system reliability. The 777 and 787 airplanes were designed with four sources of
electrical power (two for each engine) which satisfies the FAR requirements for 180-minute ETOPS. The
addition of the APU electrical generating system provided a backup source of electrical power in the event of
an engine failure and the ability to operate beyond 180 minutes. The Boeing Company took credit for the HMG
on the 757/767 during ETOPS certification to meet the required redundancy characteristics for ETOPS.
Although the 777 and 787 have two sources of electrical power on each engine, Boeing took credit for the APU
to support the required electrical system redundancy for ETOPS design.
The equipment cooling system for the Electrical/Electronics (E/E) bay is required to have additional monitoring
for the extended operating time. The cargo compartment fire suppression system must have sufficient
capacity to provide suppression capability for 15 minutes beyond the maximum diversion time for which the
airplane is approved (or a 15-minute reduction in suppression time calculation). The APU, which may be
needed for back-up electrical power at altitude, must meet established high altitude start and run capabilities
for ETOPS if routing causes a cold soaked condition (two - three hours at high altitude). Other systems on the
ETOPS airplane and engines require modification as specified in the CMP Standard for that model.
Some of these modifications require parts that are specifically designed or chosen for higher reliability. The
current ETOPS configuration requirements are listed in the latest revision of the CMP Standard for the specific
airplane. ETOPS operators are required to have an ETOPS Maintenance Program that specifically maintains
the design integrity for ETOPS.

1.5 ETOPS Continuous Airworthiness Maintenance Program (CAMP)

The additional equipment on ETOPS configured airplanes and the special nature of ETOPS require special
attention to maintenance actions. These actions are outlined in FAA 14 CFR § 121.374, AC 120-42B,
European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AMC 20-6 Rev2, and other ETOPS regulations throughout the
industry. These regulations are discussed in this document as well. Airline management must recognize the
special nature of ETOPS and the high standards of maintenance which it demands.

1.6 Master Minimum Equipment List (MMEL) for ETOPS

The dispatch requirements for some systems on ETOPS flights differ from non-ETOPS dispatch requirements.
The MMEL, developed by the manufacturer and approved by the FAA, distinguishes these differences by
reference to "ER" operations on earlier model airplanes like the 737, 757, and 767, or diversion times on later
model airplanes like the 777, 787, and 747-8. (Note: In some MMEL documents, the term “ER” means
ETOPS.) For example, the 767 MMEL shows that there are three Electronic Flight Instrument Systems (EFIS)
installed but only one may be inoperative at dispatch "except for ER operations". For ETOPS flights, all three
EFIS must be operative at dispatch. Later model airplane MMELs will reference the diversion times (flight
remains within120 minutes of a landing site,180 minutes of a landing site, etc.).
The airlines are required to develop their own Minimum Equipment List (MEL) which can be more restrictive
than the MMEL, but must not be less restrictive. The dispatch of airplanes on ETOPS flights may require
additional maintenance activity at turnaround due to these MMEL/MEL differences.

NOTE: The MEL is the dispatch authority operators are to use on a day to day basis when dispatching aircraft for
both ETOPS and non-ETOPS missions. The Quick Reference Handbook (QRH) is the authority that flight
crew members manage the airplane with during ETOPS and non-ETOPS flights.

8 D621T401 REV D
1.7 Maintenance Requirements and Guidelines for ETOPS

In addition to this document and the scheduled maintenance requirements identified in the Maintenance
Review Board Report and the Maintenance Planning Document (MPD), the following documents are essential
for understanding the maintenance requirements for ETOPS:
1. Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs) governing ETOPS (or equivalent);
2. The CMP Standard for the applicable model;
3. The ETOPS Guide, Volume I (CMP Supplement, Non-Approved and Restricted ETOPS Parts List,
ETOPS Significant Systems Guide, and Pre-Departure Service Check Study (PDSC)).

The FAR and CMP Standard are discussed in the next two sections of this document. The CMP and the
ETOPS Guides are provided to Boeing customers (737-300 through -900, 747-8I, 757, 767, 777, and 787)
whether or not they are currently flying ETOPS. This is done so that any airline contemplating ETOPS will
have the necessary information on hand. These documents are available on myboeingfleet.com via the
Extended Operations web site (myboeingfleet.com/extended-operations). From there, the operator can select
the document they are seeking. When the CMP documents are revised, notifications will be sent by the
Boeing Communication System (BCS) to applicable operators.
Only a few of the large number of 737-200 and MD-81/-82/-83/-88 airplane operators are flying ETOPS. For
this reason, the ETOPS documents are distributed only to those few. Airlines operating these models who are
contemplating ETOPS should request these documents through their Boeing Field Service Representative or
download from myboeingfleet.com.
If the customer selects paper copies at contract closure, paper copies of these documents are shipped to the
official address provided by the airline, which is usually the airline's Technical Library. The Technical Library (or
whomever receives the information) should distribute these documents to the airline's Maintenance and
Engineering personnel responsible for ETOPS operations. If the operator selects electronic copies only, the
documents can be downloaded from myboeingfleet.com via the Extended Operations web site. Operators of
Boeing and DPD airplanes who did not purchase airplanes directly from the manufacturer should determine, at
the outset of the purchase or lease negotiations, whether or not these documents will come with the airplane
transaction. If not, they must negotiate with Boeing to acquire them through the Data and Services Catalog
(D6-40562).

REV D D621T401 9
 2.0 FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 120-42B

2.1 Purpose

FAA AC 120-42B describes an acceptable means, but not the only means, of obtaining operational approval to
conduct ETOPS under 14 CFR § 121.161.
Other regulatory authorities throughout the world have established their own regulations and/or advisories for
ETOPS which are generally the same as (or very similar to) the FAA requirements. These other authorities,
however, may interpret the requirements differently from the FAA and differently from those detailed programs
discussed in this document.

2.2 Basic Concepts

The overall safety and reliability of an airplane is determined by the original design. This is referred to as the
inherent level of safety and reliability. Maintenance actions cannot increase this designed-in level, but the level
can deteriorate if the maintenance performed is inadequate. The FAR governing ETOPS defines those
programs required to ensure that the basic airplane maintenance program established by the Maintenance
Steering Group (MSG) programs, outlined in the Boeing MPD document, is carried out efficiently and
effectively.
Some ETOPS airplanes have additional equipment installed and other systems are modified for ETOPS.
These modifications and parts must be incorporated prior to the start of ETOPS or at the required timeline.
Some systems require additional maintenance tasks; these systems are identified in the Service Bulletins
(SBs) and Service Letters (SL on older version ETOPS airplanes) listed in the CMP Standard. The CFR also
defines certain monitoring requirements for ETOPS airplanes. These requirements however, do not represent
a significant increase in maintenance activity. The processes and procedures identified in the applicable
regulation are recommended for any good maintenance program and have been incorporated into many
operators current program.

2.3 ETOPS CAMP Requirements

14 CFR § 121.374 (or equivalent) identifies the maintenance requirements for obtaining ETOPS operational
approval. These processes and procedures should be in place at the airline prior to receiving approval for
ETOPS. The requirements are the same for deviations of 60 minutes or more, except as described in
Appendix P of 14 CFR § 121.374 (or equivalent). A brief overview of these requirements is provided here; a
more detailed description is provided in Section 4 of this document.
The ETOPS Maintenance Program begins with the operator's CAMP (or approved maintenance program)
which is currently approved for the engine/airplane combination to be used for ETOPS. Any additional
procedures necessary for the ETOPS Maintenance Program must be added to the existing CAMP (or
approved existing maintenance program) and identified in the ETOPS Maintenance Document. The operator's
maintenance training program must also be supplemented to address the special nature of ETOPS to ensure
that ETOPS program personnel (as defined by the operator) understand the philosophy of ETOPS and are
trained on the airline's specific paperwork and procedures. A typical ETOPS training syllabus is provided in
Appendix A of this document.
The existing approved Maintenance Reliability Program or Continuing Analysis and Surveillance System
(CASS) should be supplemented to provide special attention to the ETOPS activities. The airline may have a
statistically based reliability program as part of their CAMP (or approved maintenance program) and/or CASS
program, and should add an event based reliability program for ETOPS Significant Systems as part of their
maintenance program supplemented for ETOPS. This event-oriented program requires continual monitoring
and investigation rather than relying on trends and/or alert levels as a conventional reliability program would
use. This will be discussed further in Section 4.

10 D621T401 REV D
14 CFR § 121.374 and AC 120-42B (or equivalent), require that operators develop an ETOPS Maintenance
Program that includes the following elements:
1. A CAMP (or approved maintenance program) that encompasses issues unique to ETOPS. The following
are considered basic additional elements of these programs for an ETOPS operator:
• ETOPS Program Document – An ETOPS Maintenance Program Manual that identifies all ETOPS
maintenance procedures, duties, and responsibilities. This document can be part of the General
Maintenance Manual (GMM), Policies and Procedures Manual (PPM), or a standalone document,
but all must be accessible to all personnel with ETOPS responsibilities.
• ETOPS PDSC – An ETOPS Service Check is to be performed prior to each ETOPS flight.
• Dual Maintenance – A program to avoid performing maintenance on both units of a dual system
(maintenance of multiple, similar systems) such as engine driven generators, fuel or oil filters, main
engine fuel control units, etc.
• Verification Program – A program to ensure that proper corrective action is taken (resolution of
discrepancies) following an engine in-flight shutdown, an ETOPS Significant System failure and any
adverse trends indicated by oil consumption and/or engine condition monitoring programs.
• Task Identification – Identify maintenance items critical to ETOPS. These tasks must be identified on
the work forms or job instruction cards to be accomplished by an ETOPS Qualified Technician, or
parceled in an ETOPS scheduled maintenance package. Consideration for line maintenance should
also be addressed by the operator and will be discussed later in this document.
• Centralized Maintenance Control Center – Provide oversight and manage the day to day ETOPS
operation. This department would have ultimate authority and responsibility over the ETOPS
maintenance program (in a tactical sense). This item is not required by EASA AMC20-6 Rev and is
addressed in Section 5.3.6 of this document.
• ETOPS Parts Control Program – To ensure that only ETOPS authorized parts are used on ETOPS
aircraft and identify procedures on how to avoid dispatching an airplane with non-ETOPS parts
installed.
• Reliability Program – An event-oriented reliability program designed to identify and prevent ETOPS-
related problems and ensure an acceptable level of reliability is achieved and maintained.
• Propulsion System Monitoring – A program to monitor in-flight shut-down rates for the airline's
ETOPS airplanes and ensure that action is taken to restore the engine while determining if a
recurrence of the problem can be avoided or reduced in the future.
• Engine Condition Monitoring – A program to ensure that the engine parameters are not exceeded
and address problems before they cause degradation or shut-down. This is to ensure the internal
limit margins are maintained to support single engine diversion scenarios.
• Oil Consumption Monitoring – A program to determine the engine and APU oil consumption rate for
each flight of an ETOPS airplane, whether an ETOPS flight or not.
• APU In-Flight Start Program – A program to ensure adequate high altitude start capability for
the APU.
• Maintenance Training – A training program to ensure that the ETOPS philosophy, along with all
procedures specific to the operator’s ETOPS program are included in the course and identifies the
personnel that are required to complete the training.
• CMP Document – If an engine/airplane combination has a CMP document, the certificate holder
must use a system that ensures compliance with the applicable FAA-approved document.

REV D D621T401 11
 • Procedural Changes – Each substantial change to a maintenance or training procedure that was
used to qualify the certificate holder for ETOPS must be submitted to the regulating authority
for review.

2.4 Other Maintenance Significant Chapters and Appendices to AC 120-42B

The FAA maintenance program requirement for ETOPS is contained primarily in 14 CFR § 121.374 and
AC 120-42B. However, there are other areas of the regulations that relate to maintenance and engineering
activities under special operational conditions. As specified in Appendix P of 14 CFR 121 and Chapter 4 of
AC 120-42B, there are operational requirements and limitations for the various ETOPS diversion times. Other
regulatory requirements are basically aligned with the FAA standards but do have their own format and
requirements. These are discussed briefly below to show the maintenance requirements for the operator to
consider when seeking approval for the specific diversion time.

FAA ETOPS Authorizations as Defined in Appendix P of 14 CFR § 121 – Airplanes with Two Engines
• 75-Minute ETOPS (Caribbean/Western Atlantic): All maintenance program requirements stated in
Section 2.3 of this document are required for this diversion approval with the exception of a PDSC on the
return leg of the ETOPS flight. The aircraft does not have to be type certificated for ETOPS, but must have
demonstrated a high level of reliability appropriate for 75-minute diversion times. The operator must
consider any MEL requirements applicable to the diversion time and comply with any remaining
requirements stated in Appendix P of 14 CFR 121.
• 90-Minute ETOPS (Micronesia): All maintenance program requirements stated in Section 2.3 of this
document are required for this diversion approval with the exception of a PDSC on the return leg of the
ETOPS flight. This authorization is for an airplane that is type certificated and configured to the CMP
Standards of 120-minute diversion times. The operator must consider any MEL requirements applicable
to the diversion time and comply with any remaining requirements stated in Appendix P of 14 CFR 121.
• 120-Minute ETOPS: All maintenance program requirements stated in Section 2.3 of this document are
required for this diversion approval. The airplane and engine combination is required to be ETOPS type
certificated for a minimum of 120 minutes and configured to the standard specified in the CMP. The
operator must consider any MEL requirements applicable to the diversion time and comply with any
remaining requirements stated in Appendix P of 14 CFR 121.
• 138-Minute ETOPS: Operators with 120-minute approval: All maintenance program requirements stated
in Section 2.3 of this document are required for this diversion approval. The airplane and engine
combination is required to be an ETOPS type design approved for a minimum of 120 minutes and
configured to the standards specified in the CMP. Operation is on a flight-by-flight exception. The
operator must consider any MEL requirements applicable to the diversion time and comply with any
remaining requirements stated in Appendix P of 14 CFR 121.
• 138-Minute ETOPS: Operators with 180-minute approval: All maintenance program requirements stated
in Section 2.3 of this document are required for this diversion approval. The airplane and engine
combination is required to be an ETOPS type design approved for a minimum of 180 minutes and
configured to the standards specified in the CMP. The operator must consider any MEL requirements
applicable to the diversion time and comply with any remaining requirements stated in Appendix P of
14 CFR 121.
• 180-Minute ETOPS: All maintenance program requirements stated in Section 2.3 of this document are
required for this diversion approval. The engine and airplane combination must have an ETOPS type
design approval for 180 minutes and configured to the standards specified in the CMP for 180 minutes.
The operator must consider any MEL requirements applicable to the diversion time and comply with any
remaining requirements stated in Appendix P of 14 CFR 121.

12 D621T401 REV D
• Greater than 180-Minute ETOPS: All maintenance program requirements stated in Section 2.3 of this
document are required for this diversion approval. The operator must already be approved for 180-
minute diversion times for the airplane that they will be using for the route. They must consider all
available airports within 180 minutes for use as alternates to minimize the diversion time to 180 minutes
as much as possible. Flight crews are required to receive updated flight plans prior to entering the
extended range point that would include information on airplane status and alternates. The operator
must consider any MEL requirements applicable to the diversion time and comply with any remaining
requirements stated in Appendix P of 14 CFR 121. The only other maintenance concerns would be the
requirements for specific equipment beyond 180-minute diversion times (i.e., Fuel quantity indicating,
APU electrical and pneumatic supply, auto throttle, etc.).
• 207-Minute in the North Pacific Area of Operation: All maintenance program requirements stated in
Section 2.3 of this document are required for this diversion approval. The engine and airplane
combination must, at minimum, be approved for 180-minute diversion times and configured to the
standards specified in the CMP. In all cases, the time to fly the distance to an alternate may not exceed
the diversion time plus 15 minutes specified in the Airplane Flight Manual. The operator must consider
any MEL requirements applicable to the diversion time and comply with any remaining requirements
stated in Appendix P of 14 CFR 121.
• 240-Minute Area of Operation in the North Polar Area of the NOPAC and in the Pacific Ocean North
of the Equator: All maintenance program requirements stated in Section 2.3 of this document are
required for this diversion approval. The operator must already be approved for greater than 180-minute
diversion times for the airplane that they will be using for this route and have experience on that airplane
and engine combination. The airplane and engine combination must be an ETOPS type design approved
for greater than 180 minutes and configured to the standards specified in the CMP. This approval is to be
used on a flight-by-flight exception as an extension of 180-minute approval for this area. The operator
must consider any MEL requirements applicable to the diversion time and comply with any remaining
requirements stated in Appendix P of 14 CFR 121.
• 240-Minute Area of Operation in areas south of the Equator: All maintenance program requirements
stated in Section 2.3 of this document are required for this diversion approval. The operator must already
be approved for greater than 180-minute diversion times for the airplane that they will be using for this
route and have experience on that airplane and engine combination. The airplane and engine
combination must be an ETOPS type design approved for greater than 180 minutes and configured to the
standards specified in the CMP. This approval is to be used on a flight-by-flight exception as an extension
of 180-minute approval for this area. The operator must consider any MEL requirements applicable to the
diversion time and comply with any remaining requirements stated in Appendix P of 14 CFR 121.
• Beyond 240-Minute Area of Operation: All maintenance program requirements stated in Section 2.3 of
this document are required for this diversion approval. This authority would only be available to those
operators that have considerable experience with ETOPS, including any 240-minute approval times. At
minimum, the operator would have to have 24 consecutive months of ETOPS experience with 180-minute
or greater diversion times, of which at least 12 consecutive months were at 240-minute diversion times on
the engine and airplane combination. The airplane and engine combination must be ETOPS type design
approved for greater than 180 minutes and configured to the standards specified in the CMP Standard.
The operator must consider any MEL requirements applicable to the diversion time and comply with any
remaining requirements stated in Appendix P of 14 CFR 121.

REV D D621T401 13
FAA ETOPS Authorizations as Defined in Appendix P of 14 CFR 121: Passenger-Carrying Airplanes with
More Than Two Engines

• Beyond 180-Minute Area of Operation: Maintenance program requirements specified in Section 2.3 of
this document and 14 CFR § 121.374 (or equivalent) are not applicable to these airplanes. The only
additional ETOPS maintenance concerns would be for the requirements of specific equipment beyond
180-minute diversion times (i.e., Fuel quantity indicating, communications, cargo fire suppression, etc.).
For all such operations, the nearest available ETOPS alternate airport within a 240-minute diversion time
must be specified. If an ETOPS alternate airport is not available within 240 minutes, the operator may
conduct the flight by designating the nearest ETOPS alternate airport on the planned route that is within
the airplane’s most time-limited system capability as specified by 14 CFR § 121.633. The operator must
consider any MEL requirements applicable to the diversion time and comply with any remaining
requirements stated in Appendix P of 14 CFR 121.

FAA Requirements for Polar Area Operations

The polar areas north of North 78 degrees N Latitude (except for intrastate operation in Alaska) and south of
60 degrees S Latitude have been designated as ETOPS Polar Areas. The following items must be addressed
by the operator in relation to these areas:
1. Airport designations and requirements for en-route diversions
2. Recovery plan for passengers at diversion alternates, except for supplemental all-cargo operations
3. Fuel freeze strategy and monitoring requirements
4. Communication capability
5. MEL considerations for Polar operations
6. Training issues
7. Considerations for crew safety during solar flare activity
8. Special equipment needed, such as cold weather anti-exposure suits

The operator must comply with all requirements stated in Appendix P of 14 CFR 121 (see ETOPS Guide
Volume III, Section (TBD) for a description of the Polar operational requirements).
It must be noted that Polar Area Operations and ETOPS (CAMP) are two separate programs, each having
their own unique requirements. There are no unique ETOPS maintenance requirements for Polar Area
Operations. It is suggested that maintenance develop a logistical plan in the event where an engine /
system failure diverts or grounds an airplane in this area of operation.

EASA Requirements Defined in AMC 20-6 Rev 2: Applicability is only for two engine airplanes at this time
• Approval for 90 Minutes or Less Diversion Time: This is an operational limit that cannot exceed either the
maximum approved diversion time or time-limited system capability plus 15 minutes If the airplane/engine
combination does not yet have type design approval for at least 90 minutes, the aircraft should satisfy the
relevant ETOPS design requirements. Up to 90 minute diversion approval should be used for operators
of little to no in-service experience. The quality of the maintenance and operations programs are
important elements of this approval.
• Approval for Diversion Time Above 90 Minutes Up to 180 Minutes: Prior to approval, the operator's
capability to conduct operations and implement effective ETOPS programs, in accordance with the criteria
detailed in this AMC and the relevant appendices, will be examined.

14 D621T401 REV D
 The Operator's Approved Diversion Time is an operational limit that should not exceed either:
• the Maximum Approved Diversion Time, or,
• the time-limited system capability minus 15 minutes

Additional Considerations for Aircraft with 120 minutes Maximum Approved Diversion Time
In the case of an aircraft approved for 120 minutes Maximum Approved Diversion Time, an operator may
request an increase in the approved diversion time for specific routes, provided that:
1. The requested Operator's Approved Diversion Time does not exceed either:
• 115% of the Maximum Approved Diversion Time or,
• the time-limited system capability minus 15 minutes.

2. The airplane fuel carriage supports the requested Operator's Approved Diversion Time.
3. It can be shown that the resulting routing will not reduce the overall safety of the operation.

Such increases will require:

A. The Agency to assess overall type design including time-limited systems, demonstrated reliability; and
B. The development of an appropriate MEL related to the diversion time required.

Additional Considerations for Aircraft with 180 minutes Maximum Approved Diversion Time
In the case of an aircraft certified for 180 minutes Maximum Approved Diversion Time, an operator may
request an increase in the approved diversion time for specific routes, provided that:
1. The requested Operator's Approved Diversion Time does not exceed either:
• 115% of the Maximum Approved Diversion Time or,
• the time-limited system capability minus 15 minutes.

2. The airplane fuel carriage supports the requested Operator's Approved Diversion Time.
3. It can be shown that the resulting routing will not reduce the overall safety of the operation.

Such increases will require:

A. The Agency to assess overall type design including time-limited systems, demonstrated reliability; and
B. The development of an appropriate MEL related to the diversion time required.

Approval for Diversion Time Above 180 Minutes

Approval to conduct operations with diversion times exceeding 180 minutes may be granted to operators with
previous ETOPS experience on the particular engine/airframe combination and an existing 180-minute ETOPS
approval on the airframe/engine combination listed in their application.
Operators should minimize diversion time along the preferred track. Increases in diversion time by
disregarding ETOPS adequate aerodromes along the route, should only be planned in the interest of the
overall safety of the operation.
The approval to operate more than 180 minutes from an adequate aerodrome shall be area specific, based on
the availability of adequate ETOPS en-route alternate aerodromes.

REV D D621T401 15
(i) Operating limitations
In view of the long diversion time involved (above 180 minutes), the operator is responsible to ensure at flight
planning stage, that on any given day in the forecast conditions, such as prevailing winds, temperature and
applicable diversion procedures, a diversion to an ETOPS en-route alternate aerodrome will not exceed the:
a. Engine-related time-limited systems capability minus 15 minutes at the approved one-engine-
inoperative cruise speed; and
b. Non engine-related time-limited system capability minus 15 minutes, such as cargo fire suppression,
or other non engine-related system capability at the all engine operative cruise speed.
(ii) Communications Equipment (VHF/HF, Data Link and Satellite based communications)
Operators should use any or all of these forms of communications to ensure communications capability when
operating ETOPS in excess of 180 minutes.

Approval For ETOPS Diversion Times Above 180 Minutes of Operation of Two-Engine Aeroplanes with a
Maximum Passenger Seating Capacity of 19 or Less and a Maximum Take-Off Mass Less Than 45,360 KG
(i) Type Design
The airframe/engine combination should have the appropriate Type Design approval for the requested
maximum diversion times in accordance with the criteria in CS 25.1535 and chapter II 'Type Design Approval
Considerations' of this AMC.
(ii) Operations Approval
Approval to conduct operations with diversion times exceeding 180 minutes may be granted to operators with
experience on the particular airframe/engine combination or existing ETOPS approval on a different airframe/
engine combination, or equivalent experience. Operators should minimize diversion time along the preferred
track to 180 minutes or less whenever possible. The approval to operate more than 180 minutes from an
adequate aerodrome shall be area specific, based on the availability of alternate aerodromes, the diversion to
which would not compromise safety.

NOTE: Exceptionally for this type of airplane, operators may use the accelerated ETOPS approval method to gain
ETOPS approval. This method is described in Section 5.

16 D621T401 REV C
2.5 ETOPS Approval Methods as described in AC 120-42B Appendix 3

1. In-Service Experience Method (two-engine for up to 180-minute ETOPS):

a. The certificate holder should show an acceptable level of propulsion system reliability along with
obtaining sufficient maintenance and operational familiarity with the particular airplane-engine
combination.
b. The Experience requirement will be adjusted on a case-by-case basis after an evaluation of the
certificate holder's ability and competence to achieve the necessary reliability for the particular
engine/airplane combination.
c. Appendix 3 of AC 120-42B references minimum experience requirements for specific approvals.
These areas are discussed in Section 2.4 of this document.
2. Accelerated ETOPS Method (up to 180-minute ETOPS for two-engine airplanes and for all ETOPS
approvals for passenger-carrying airplanes with more than two engines)
a. The certificate holder seeking ETOPS operational approval must demonstrate to the FAA that it has
an ETOPS program in place that consists of all the applicable ETOPS process elements defined in
AC 120-42B, Chapter 3, Requirements For ETOPS Authorization.
b. The identified process elements should be validated as being in place and functioning as intended.
This can be accomplished by thorough documentation and analysis, or by demonstrating on an
airplane that the process works and consistently provides the intended results. Demonstration or
validation can be performed on the same engine/airplane combination or different model that is
already in the fleet. The certificate holder is proving processes, not the airplane. The airplane will go
through the normal certification process by the manufacturer. Experienced operators should
emphasize processes and procedures that they have had in place for an extended period of time and
are already acceptable to the authority. This will allow them to concentrate on any new elements that
need to be proven before the delivery of the new engine/airplane combination.
c. An operator who already has approved and proven ETOPS processes and procedures for a different
engine/airplane combination should have reduced validation requirements. The operator must
ensure that these processes and procedures will transfer to the new engine/airplane combination
successfully. In addition, credit for experience with long range, over water operations with two, three,
or four engine airplanes, as well as dispatch experience for these types of operations should be
given consideration when using this method of ETOPS approval.
d. The operators should submit the application approximately six months prior to the proposed start
date of ETOPS operation. This may vary according to the experience mentioned above. There
should be defined review gates to determine the readiness of each program prior to ETOPS
operation and to continue beyond the approval date to ensure that these processes and procedures
are meeting the requirements of the Advisory Circular and 14 CFR § 121.374 (or equivalent). Flight
Operations and Maintenance should work closely in development of the application. There are
procedures that will impact both divisions and should coordinate the best policies for each operation.
e. A final validation of ETOPS processes and procedures is typically required following approval of the
application. This validation may vary from operator to operator depending upon operator experience
and process elements as determined by the approving authority.

Volume III of the Boeing ETOPS Guide contains instructions and an example of the Accelerated ETOPS
Approval Plan available to the operator. The actual template that allows text to be manipulated by the operator
as they insert the required data is located at myboeingfleet.com and found under "Templates" on the Extended
Operations web site.

REV D D621T401 17
 3.0 The Configuration, Maintenance and Procedures (CMP) Standard

3.1 Purpose and Scope

The CMP Standard is required and approved by the FAA and published by the airplane manufacturer. The
original CMP documents were separate documents for each airplane model, with each approved engine/
airplane combination listed separately. The format and content of the CMP Standard has changed over the
years and has been produced in various forms.
The CMP Standard was developed to identify required modifications to the existing airplane models in order for
them to be suitable for ETOPS. The original CMP included (1) configuration changes (modifications) to
improve reliability for ETOPS, (2) certain maintenance tasks to improve performance and monitoring, and
(3) certain interim flight operations procedures.
Configuration standards are for two-engine ETOPS airplanes and passenger airplanes with more than two
engines designed eight years from the effective date of 14 CFR Part 25 (February 15th, 2015) when operating
beyond 180-minute diversion approvals. Existing passenger airplanes with more than two engines will not be
type certificated for beyond 180-minute approval but will be exempt as stated in 14 CFR Part 25. There will not
be a certification (CMP) document for these exempt airplanes so as long as the operator complies with all
Airworthiness Directives (ADs), the airplane will be properly configured for ETOPS. Operators should consider
compliance to recommended service bulletins that support higher reliability standards for any system
significant for ETOPS operations.

3.2 Variations in Format of CMP Standard

The Boeing 777 was designed as an ETOPS airplane and expected not to need any further modifications to
maintain ETOPS standards. As a result of this philosophy, no CMP document was generated. After a period
of service, however, it was determined that certain changes were warranted. For the 777, these configuration
changes were listed in Appendix A of the airplane type certificate. Operators of the 777 airplane found this
documentation difficult to use. As a result, Boeing generated a CMP and CMP Supplement for the 777 as
some earlier models (see Section 3.3). The 777 CMP and CMP Supplement do not follow the same format as
the earlier model airplanes; they are sectioned out strictly by engine airframe combination with no separation
for Part A, B, C, and D.
The CMP Supplement, Volume I of the ETOPS Guide, was produced in standard format to assist ETOPS
operators in interpreting the requirements of the CMP and provided guidance to develop programs to meet
these requirements. The DPD airplanes are covered in a separate document produced by DPD.
In Section 1, Table 2 lists the CMP Standards for all Boeing and DPD airplanes approved for ETOPS. The
revision letters and dates as of April 1998 are also shown in this table.

3.3 Contents and Format of the Boeing CMP Documents

The CMP document contains introductory material including a list of terms. Each engine approved for ETOPS
is addressed in a separate section of the CMP. For the 737, 747-8I, 757, 767, and 787 engine/airplane
combinations, each section is divided into four parts (A through D) with specific information in each part as
shown below.
1. Part A: Engine manufacturer items;
2. Part B: Airframe and engine build-up items;
3. Part C: APU items; and
4. Part D: Demonstrated capability items.

18 D621T401 REV D
Parts A, B, and C contain all the SBs and SLs issued by the manufacturers or vendors which are necessary for
ETOPS operational approval. Items for 120- and 180-minute diversion times are listed separately. Systems
whose safety may be affected by ETOPS have been evaluated and are listed in Part D. Part D also includes
items that do not fit in the categories above. It should be noted that SLs were used in early ETOPS type
design requirements but are no longer approved to drive ETOPS certification requirements because they are
not FAA approved or driven by ADs.
Each item in the CMP is identified by a number (e.g., 49-2). The first two digits of this number identify the
ATA Chapter (49, APU), followed by a sequential item number. The SB or SL is identified by a manufacturer's
number. Some items allow the operator choices between two, sometimes three actions. In these cases, the
CMP Number will have a third component and the choice between the two (or three) will be indicated in the text
(e.g., 49-16-1 or 49-16-2).
Some item numbers in the CMP are preceded by an asterisk (*). These items should be incorporated
according to the manufacturer's recommended schedule as noted in the SB, SL, or CMP itself. Items without
an asterisk must be incorporated prior to the start of ETOPS. In some cases, an item in the CMP may have an
incorporation date for a 120-minute diversion time which permits ETOPS operation as long as the modification
is incorporated before the date listed. These same items, however, may be required to be incorporated before
the start of 180-minute ETOPS.
For the 777 engine/airplane combinations, the CMP format is broken down into the various engines (GE, P&W,
RR, etc.) and model type (-200, -200LR, -300, etc.). Each section will include all engine, airframe, and
APU systems.

3.4 Contents and Format of the DPD CMP Document

The DPD CMP format differs from that used by Boeing but contains essentially the same kind of information.
The DPD CMP (MDC-K1689) identifies the configuration, maintenance and procedures for extended range
operation of the approved MD-80 series airplanes that must be implemented prior to conducting ETOPS. This
document is divided into seven parts as described below.
1. The Introduction contains general information on CMP requirements and identifies the DPD engine/
airplane combinations that have been approved for 120-minute diversion times.
2. Appendix A contains a list of DPD and supplier SBs applicable to the MD-80 Series airframes, engines
and APU.
3. Appendix B specifies maintenance items required in addition to the normal maintenance program for
120-minute diversion times.
4. Appendix C specifies operational procedures and limitations required in addition to normal procedures
and limitations for 120-minute diversion times.
5. Appendix D contains a listing of DPD or supplier SBs applicable to airframe, engine and APU when
conducting ETOPS with 75-minute deviation in a benign area.
6. Appendix E identifies maintenance procedures for 75-minute diversion times in a benign area relative to
fuel quantity.
7. Appendix F contains operational procedures and limitations relative to fuel quantity and fuel management
for 75-minute diversion times in a benign area.

REV D D621T401 19
3.5 ETOPS Guide Volume 1

Volume 1 of the ETOPS Guide contains the CMP Supplement, Non-Approved and Restricted ETOPS Parts
List, ETOPS Significant Systems Guide, and ETOPS PDSC, each one specific for each airplane model. The
CMP Supplement was developed to provide more detailed information about CMP requirements; the other
documents were added to expand its use to the operator. Each line item in the CMP is represented by a full
page in the CMP Supplement. Additional information includes (1) comments on why the modification was
required, (2) references to other manufacturer's documents relative to the modification (if applicable), and
(3) the manufacturer's incorporation schedule for the mod (if applicable). One of the most valuable
components of the CMP Supplement is the listing of which airplanes (by Boeing Line Number) have had the
modification incorporated in production and those which require retrofit by the operator. The latter information
makes it easier for an operator of an older airplane to determine which modifications need to be made in order
to achieve ETOPS configuration status.

NOTE: There is no CMP Supplement for the 737-100/200 airplanes nor the DPD Series airplanes.

3.6 CMP Revisions

The CMP Standard may be revised as necessary, in order to keep the documentation current with new engine
or aircraft systems, or with new maintenance or operational requirements. Currently, all Boeing two-engine
models are approved for ETOPS (see Table 1): the 737-200/300/400/500 Series is approved for 120-minute
diversion times and the 737-600/700/700C/800/900/900ER is approved for 180-minute diversion times. The
757, 767 777, and 787 models are also approved for 180-minute diversion times. The DPD models, MD-81/
82/83/88 are approved for 120-minute diversion times, but the 717 is only approved for 75-minute diversion
times. No other DPD two-engine airplanes are ETOPS approved. Table 1 identifies the CMP Standard for
each airplane model.
At the time of this revision, the 777 and 787 were the only airplane approved for a diversion time beyond
180 minutes. Both airplanes are approved for 207 minutes on a flight by flight basis, but the airplane itself is
type certificated to 180 minutes. The 777 GE and PW configurations are type certificated for greater than
180-minute ETOPS. Time limited system capability is identified at 345 minutes. This provides an option for
the operator to configure sufficient cargo fire suppression to support ETOPS operations up to 330 minutes.
The Boeing Company is seeking 330 minute type design approval for the 787 and the 747-8; at the time of this
revision it was not yet approved. Time limited system capability is identified as 345 minutes but the airplanes
are not yet certified for greater than 180 minute ETOPS.
As stated previously in this guide, the CMP presents the airplane engine configuration, maintenance and
procedure standards for ETOPS. Upon incorporation of these standards, type design of the airplane engine
combination is found to be suitable for ETOPS operation. The standard identified in the CMP, by reference
documentation and revision level, establishes a minimum standard for ETOPS. Subsequent FAA approved
revisions to the reference documentation (same SB or SL with follow-on revision number), or FAA approved
superseding documentation (SB or SL with later date which addresses the same modification) may be used,
but are not required. This may include subsequent FAA-approved parts (follow-on part dash numbers or follow-
on replacements for parts defined in SBs and SLs called out in this document). The CMP cannot be the sole
source of information relative to ETOPS configuration, maintenance or operational procedures. Operators can
develop alternate configuration items, incorporation schedules, and/or procedures for any entry in this
document. These modifications would require regulatory authority approval that would be obtained via the
customary approval processes for such changes. These operator generated, regulatory agency approved,
alternatives will not normally be included in this document.

20 D621T401 REV D
The CMP is formulated and maintained as follows:
a. Boeing will develop proposals for new ETOPS approvals and maintain the document; the FAA will
approve the document.
b. The CMP will be revised, as necessary, to include new type design approvals, alternate acceptable
configurations, or alternate ETOPS allowable dispatch requirements. In accordance with current FAA
policy and U.S. federal regulatory processes the CMP will not be revised to include additional
requirements to an already approved airplane/engine combination without the AD process. This provides
a public comment period via the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) procedure.
c. When there is a disagreement between this document and the requirements that result from FAA ADs, the
AD will prevail.
d. If a CMP item is superseded by an AD, the item will be removed from the CMP at the next revision and the
AD action and compliance schedule will prevail. In some cases, the item will be lined out with a notation
of the AD superseding the requirement. This allows the item to remain for historical purposes.
Operators are required to work to the CMP revision standard assigned at airplane delivery. Based on the
defined CMP process, if an operator is fully compliant with the CMP the only mandatory action required by the
operator will be identified via the AD process. Operators should review future revisions to the CMP to
determine if any of the new approvals or alternate acceptable configurations could be useful for
their operations.

REV D D621T401 21
 4.0 ETOPS Significant Systems

4.1 Definition of Use

Throughout AC 120-42B, 14 CFR § 121.374 and other ETOPS related documents, the term "ETOPS
Significant Systems" is used in connection with ETOPS systems relating to the requirements for the ETOPS
maintenance procedures and programs listed below:
1. Limitations on Dual Maintenance
2. ETOPS Pre-Departure Service Check (PDSC)
3. Verification Program
4. ETOPS Reliability Program
5. ETOPS Task Identification
6. ETOPS items related to a specific ETOPS operation

ETOPS Significant Systems can be related to the number of engines, time dependent, or specifically required
for extended range operations.

4.2 Criteria for Selecting ETOPS Significant Systems

ETOPS Significant Systems are defined for both the type design process for certification and for the
operational programs to ensure design standards are kept intact. Type design lists are different in construction
as they not only identify systems significant to ETOPS, but also airplane conditions like wing performance, loss
of cabin inflow, etc. They are also not related to an ATA chapter. Operators require lists that are associated
with an ATA chapter and sub-chapter in order to identify and track according to a specific system.
The Boeing Company provides ETOPS Significant Systems Guides for operators of airplane models 737-300/
400/500, 737-600/700/800/900/900ER, 757/767, 777 and 787 airplanes. This guide includes a recommended
list the operators can use as a starting point to build their own list or use it in its entirety as their program list. In
either case, the list must be approved by the regulating authority. Boeing can provide lists for other models
as requested.
These model-specific guides are included as an appendix to Volume I of the ETOPS Guide. Operators should
take an active part in defining their ETOPS Significant Systems List as it helps them to understand the
philosophy around ETOPS and gives them ownership of the list. It should be done in cooperation with the
approving authority. This list should also be part of the ETOPS training curriculum to help frontline personnel
drive the program.
During list development, consideration should be given to the MEL as the FAA imposes restrictions around
some of the systems. That is not to say that the lists should match, it only means that there may be common
considerations for both lists. Each airline should have appropriate maintenance programs in place to ensure
these systems have adequate reliability and capability for the intended mission regardless of the number of
engines on the airplane. 14 CFR § 121.374 (or equivalent) requires that these systems be addressed in the
airline's maintenance program for ETOPS airplanes and provides guidelines for the contents of the list.
As defined in AC 120-42B:
An airplane system, including the propulsion system, the failure or malfunctioning of which could adversely
affect the safety of an ETOPS flight, or the continued safe flight and landing of an airplane during an ETOPS
diversion. Each ETOPS significant system is either an ETOPS Group 1 Significant System or an ETOPS
Group 2 Significant System.

22 D621T401 REV D
An ETOPS Group 1 Significant System:
1. Has fail-safe characteristics directly linked to the degree of redundancy provided by the number of
engines on the airplane;
2. Is a system, the failure or malfunction of which could result in an In-Flight Shutdown (IFSD), loss of thrust
control, or other power loss;
3. Contributes significantly to the safety of an ETOPS diversion by providing additional redundancy for any
system power source lost as a result of an inoperative engine; and
4. Is essential for prolonged operation of an airplane at engine inoperative altitudes.

An ETOPS Group 2 Significant System is defined by AC 120-42B (Appendix 1) as "An ETOPS significant
system that is not an ETOPS Group 1 Significant System. Group 2 system failures will not cause aircraft flight
performance loss or cabin environmental problems but may result in diversions or turn backs.
Examples of an ETOPS Group 2 Significant System may be as follows:
1. A system for which certain failure conditions would reduce the capability of the airplane or the ability of the
crew to cope with an ETOPS diversion (e.g., navigation, communication and equipment cooling, or
systems important to safe operations on a ETOPS diversion after a decompression, such as anti-icing
systems)
2. Time-limited systems, including such things as cargo fire suppression and oxygen if the ETOPS diversion
is oxygen system dependent.
3. Systems whose failure would result in excessive crew workload or have operational implications or
significant detrimental impact on the flight crew's or passenger's physiological well-being for an ETOPS
diversion (e.g., flight control forces that would be exhausting for a maximum ETOPS diversion, or system
failures that would require continuous fuel balancing to ensure proper CG, or a cabin environmental
control failure that could cause extreme heat or cold to the extent it could incapacitate the crew or cause
physical harm to the passengers).
4. A system specifically installed to enhance the safety of long-range operations and an ETOPS diversion
regardless of the applicability of the statements in Group 2 1; 2; and 3 (e.g., SATCOM).

All of the systems identified using these criteria are significant to ETOPS. Group 1 is not more important or
significant than Group 2, it only identifies what criteria determined that the system belongs on the list.
Identification of these systems for ETOPS type design was an important part of creating an airplane certificated
for ETOPS. The list defined in this section helps the operator maintain that design integrity supporting ETOPS.
These systems will impact all areas of the operator’s ETOPS maintenance program and ensure the reliability
and redundancy characteristic are maintained to support ETOPS.

REV D D621T401 23
 5.0 Continuous Airworthiness Maintenance Program (CAMP) for ETOPS

5.1 General

A quality maintenance program may have most of the elements required for ETOPS operational approval. As
operators gain experience on the engine/airplane combination(s), they should have developed or improved
programs on a continuous basis. This experience is important when seeking operational approval as
consideration is given to the experience and proven processes and procedures. Operators that use third party
maintenance providers should demand the most from those providers and must ensure that they are meeting
the standards of the ETOPS requirements as the accountability falls on the operator and not the third party
maintenance provider.

5.2 Preparation for ETOPS

A successful ETOPS operation begins with management's total commitment to support ETOPS. To begin
implementation of ETOPS, the operator should establish an ETOPS Project Manager or Focal to coordinate all
activities within the airline related to the program. It is also common for operators to form an ETOPS
Committee that includes participants from all areas that interact with the ETOPS Program. The airline should
also establish good communications with its regulatory authority from the start of ETOPS planning.
Benchmarking other operators is always a good practice when trying to compare ideas and improve any
current program or procedures.

5.2.1 ETOPS Approved Engine/Airplane Combination

ETOPS requires an engine/airplane combination that has been approved by the operator's regulatory authority
to conduct ETOPS flights. If the engine/airplane combination in question is not presently in ETOPS
configuration as identified in the applicable CMP Standard, the operator must perform the necessary
modifications in order to bring it up to the required CMP configuration. This must be accomplished before
ETOPS approval can be granted.
ETOPS Guide Volume I, commonly referred to as the CMP Supplement, can be used to help determine which
modifications were included in manufacturing. Airplane records should be available to identify the current
status of modifications that have been incorporated on the airplane since delivery. From this information, it can
be determined which modifications are required to attain full compliance. If records are unavailable that would
show SB and AD compliance, it may be necessary to access components for verification. This can be time
consuming and costly.
Table 4 lists the requirements identified in 14 CFR § 121.374 (or equivalent) for an approved ETOPS
maintenance program. All of these requirements will be discussed in detail later on in this section.

24 D621T401 REV D
 Table 4: ETOPS Maintenance Program for Two-engine Airplanes
FAA Regulation AC
120-42B and
REQUIREMENT 14 CFR § 121.374 AMC 20-6 Rev 2 COMMENTS
Continuous Airworthiness Chapter 3 Yes – Identified in A basic program to support maintenance
Maintenance Program Section 301 AMC 20-6 Rev 2 operations. This program must be enhanced to
Element Item a of include all of the elements listed below to support
AC 120-42B and the ETOPS maintenance requirements.
14 CFR § 121.374
1. ETOPS Maintenance Chapter 3 AMC 20-6 Rev 2 This document should reflect all ETOPS
Document Section 301 Appendix 8 maintenance requirements, supporting programs,
Item b of Section 3.1 procedures, duties, and responsibilities. It should
AC 120-42B be revised to include any significant changes to
and Item a of the program.
14 CFR § 121.374
2. ETOPS Pre-Departure Chapter 3 AMC 20-6 Rev 2 This check must be completed prior to an ETOPS
Service Check Section 301, Section 3.1.1 flight and verified by an ETOPS qualified technician
Item c of Section 5 as defined by the operator program guidelines.
AC 120-42B
and Item b of
14 CFR § 121.374
3. Limitations on Chapter 3 AMC 20-6 Rev 2 The affects of Human Factor error must be avoided
Dual Maintenance Section 301 Appendix 8 by having a program in place that plans against its
Item d of Section 3.1 occurrence and has procedures in place when it is
AC 120-42B and Item e of unavoidable.
and Item c of Section 4
14 CFR § 121.374
4. Verification Program Chapter 3 AMC 20-6 Rev 2 This program should be in place to verify a positive
Section 301 Appendix 8 corrective action to systems and events significant
Item e of and Item d of to ETOPS.
AC 120-42B Section 4
and Item d of
14 CFR § 121.374
5. Task Identification Chapter 3 AMC 20-6 Rev 2 Operators must identify tasks that require special
Section 301 Appendix 8 ETOPS qualifications for signature authority.
Item f of Section 3.1
AC 120-42B
and Item e of
14 CFR § 121.374
6. Centralized Chapter 3 AMC 20-6 Rev 2 The operator must have a centralized entity that is
Maintenance Control Section 301 does not identify a responsible for the daily oversight of their ETOPS
Procedures Item g of Centralized program.
AC 120-42B Maintenance
and Item f of Control requirement
14 CFR § 121.374
7. ETOPS Part Control Chapter 3 AMC 20-6 Rev 2 The operator must develop an ETOPS Parts
Program Section 301 Appendix 8 Control Program that ensures proper identification
Item h of and Item d of of ETOPS parts.
AC 120-42B Section 4
and Item g of
14 CFR § 121.374

REV D D621T401 25
 FAA Regulation AC
120-42B and
REQUIREMENT 14 CFR § 121.374 AMC 20-6 Rev 2 COMMENTS
8. Reliability Program Chapter 3 AMC 20-6 Rev 2 Operators must develop an event-based reliability
Section 301 Appendix 8 program to supplement their current statistically-
Item i of Sections 1 and 2 based program or Continuing Analysis and
AC 120-42B Section 3.2 Surveillance (CAS) program.
and Item h of Section 3.2.1,
14 CFR § 121.374 and Item c of
Section 4
9. Propulsion System Chapter 3 AMC 20-6 Rev 2 Operators must have a program that includes
Monitoring Section 301 Appendix 8 corrective action and reliability tracking.
Item j of Section 3.2.2
AC 120-42B
and Item i of
14 CFR § 121.374
10. Engine Condition Chapter 3 AMC 20-6 Rev 2, Operators must have a program in place that
Monitoring Section 301 Appendix 8 ensures engine margins are maintained to support
Item k of Section 3.2.5 a single engine diversion.
AC 120-42B and Section 4
and Item j of
14 CFR § 121.374
11. Oil Consumption Chapter 3 AMC 20-6 Rev 2 Operators must have a program in place that
Monitoring Section 301 Appendix 8 assures adequate oil quantity is in place for any
Item l of Section 3.2.4 planned diversion.
AC120-42B and Item 2 of
and Item k of Section 4
14 CFR § 121.374
12. APU In-Flight Start Chapter 3 AMC 20-6 Rev 2 Operators must have a program in place that
Program Section 301 Appendix 8 maintains APU in-flight start capabilities above
Item m of Section 3.2.3 95% reliability.
AC 120-42B and Item c of
and Item l of Section 4
14 CFR § 121.374
13. Maintenance Training Chapter 3 AMC 20-6 Rev 2 Operators must enhance their training
Section 302 of Appendix 8 requirements to include elements of their ETOPS
AC 120-42B Sections 5 and 5.1 Maintenance program over and above their normal
and Item m of training requirements.
14 CFR § 121.374
14. Configuration Chapter 3 AMC 20-6 Rev 2 Operators must ensure configuration standards are
Maintenance and Section 301 Appendix 8 maintained for the subject engine/airplane
Procedures (CMP) Item l of Section 3.1 combination as stated in the respective
AC 120-42B CMP document.
and Item n of
14 CFR § 121.374
15. Procedural Changes Chapter 3 AMC 20-6 Rev 2 Operators must have a process in place that is
Section 301 No specific acceptable to their approving authority where any
Item o of EASA requirement substantial change is approved prior to
AC 120-42B and implementation.
14 CFR § 121.374

26 D621T401 REV D
The CMP Supplement lists airplanes by Boeing Line Number and engines by Serial Number. The operator
should reference his specific Boeing Line Number and Airline Block Number in order to validate configuration
compliance.

NOTE: If an operator is leasing an airplane or buying one from someone other than the manufacturer, the ETOPS
configuration status should be determined before closing the contract. If an additional upgrade is required,
it should be determined who is financially responsible for the modifications.

5.2.2 In-Service Experience Considerations

The latest rules governing ETOPS approval have taken into account the improvements in engine and systems
reliability, low IFSD rates associated with improved later model engines, and the ability of operators to manage
events associated with these areas. In most cases, the philosophy defining ETOPS operation or diversion is
beyond 60 minutes for a two-engine aircraft and beyond 180 minutes for three- and/or four-engine, passenger
carrying aircraft. In-service experience, along with general maintenance practice experience, is considered
when the authorities determine an operator approval status.
In-Service experience will be considered when a two-engine ETOPS operator seeks approval to increase their
diversion time approval beyond 180 minutes. As requirements of the operation require even further diversion
time approval, experience is again considered by the approving authority. As an example, for an approval to
operate beyond 240 minutes, the operator must have been operating under 180-minute or greater ETOPS
authority with the engine/airplane combination to be used.
Operators should utilize the approval methods defined in Appendix 3 of AC 120-42B, AMC20-6 Rev 2
Section 5, and Section 2.4.1 of this document.

5.3 Maintenance Program Changes for ETOPS (Two Engine/Airplane Combination)

Changes to the maintenance program include the 15 items listed in Table 4. In a good, comprehensive
maintenance program, most of these actions would already exist. The ETOPS philosophy emphasizes certain
requirements which must be implemented unless they are already embedded in the airline's maintenance
program.
The intent of these maintenance requirements is to promote "best practices" that would influence maintenance
procedures and frontline personnel regardless of ETOPS or non-ETOPS significance. In other words, an
operator would see the benefit of these practices as they influence other areas of their maintenance program.
The training required for ETOPS includes the basic philosophy of ETOPS, but most importantly it covers the
specific processes, procedures, paper work and reporting chain for the operator.
The ETOPS Maintenance Document provides a single source of information on how the airline meets the
requirements of 14 CFR 121.374, AC 120-42B, and AMC20-6 Rev 2. Appendix B of this maintenance
document provides instructions on the use of the template suitable for producing an airline's ETOPS Manual.
Fourteen of the fifteen requirements from Table 4 are listed starting with 5.3.1. Each element is described in
detail to help the operator understand the intent of the rule and assist in development of a program to meet
that intent.

5.3.1 ETOPS Maintenance Document

Each operator must develop a maintenance document that includes or references all policies and procedures
pertinent to their ETOPS Maintenance Program. This document must list all responsible organizations and
positions for the elements required for ETOPS, easily accessible by frontline personnel, and user friendly for
personnel seeking clarification on policies and procedures. It is recommended that the operator work closely
with the approving authority during its development. This can allow approval or "buy in" at various stages
of development.

REV D D621T401 27
The ETOPS Maintenance Manual can be a standalone document or part of the operator's PPM. It should
reside in only one location so as not to risk failure to revise both copies of the document and also would make
it less confusing to the frontline personnel.
The manual should clearly define each element of the operator’s ETOPS Maintenance Program and be
revised when any of these elements are improved or changed. Revisions should be coordinated with the local
approving authority.
The size of the manual is not necessarily an indication of a quality document. Large documents can make
queries difficult to manage and can also create confusion during any self-audit activity.
Electronic format offers the flexibility of linking the ETOPS Document to other supporting documents or
manuals to show compliance to AC 120-42B and 14 CFR § 121.374 requirements. Revisions can be easily
posted in this format. Electronic format is not feasible for every operator, so paper format is just as acceptable.
If critical changes to the program occur, the operator should use a notification system to alert frontline
personnel until the revision process is carried out.
A template for building an ETOPS Maintenance Manual can be found at myboeingfleet.com or on the
Extended Operations web site under "Airline ETOPS Document Templates". Instructions for, and an example
of this template is available in Appendix B of the maintenance manual. This template has been used to create
ETOPS Maintenance Manuals under various approving authorities throughout the world.

5.3.2 ETOPS Pre-Departure Service Check (PDSC)

An ETOPS PDSC is required prior to any ETOPS flight. An exception would be following a non-mechanical
diversion prior to an ETOPS flight. The minimum requirements for this check is to include any "Transit"
(required before flight) interval items as defined by the MPD, along with the requirements of 14 CFR 121.374,
AC 120-42B, and AMC20-6 Rev 2 As most operators are aware, MPD intervals vary from model to model and
should be evaluated for each engine/airplane combination intended for the ETOPS operation.
Other influencing factors in determining an ETOPS PDSC content are the maintenance program that the
operator has in place and level of experience the operator has on the engine/airplane combination intended for
the ETOPS operation. These two factors can decrease or increase the number of PDSC items for any given
ETOPS program.
According to 14 CFR § 121.374, the ETOPS PDSC must at least contain the following items:
1. Verification of the condition of all ETOPS Significant Systems.
2. Verification of the overall status of the airplane by reviewing the applicable maintenance records.
3. A completed interior and exterior inspection, including the determination of engine and APU oil levels and
consumption rates.
To clarify the intent of these items, refer to the items referenced below:
1. On-board diagnostics and indicating systems can be used to identify discrepancies with any ETOPS
Significant Systems. The Technician can use the on-board equipment to evaluate these systems,
including the operator’s ETOPS Significant Systems List approved by their regulating authority.
2. The log book should be reviewed to ensure that there are no open discrepancies and compare oil
servicing records prior to dispatch. Any deferred items must be verified and follow the associated
MEL restrictions.
3. The only ETOPS related interior inspection would be in the flight deck area and would include the items
listed above and any other flight deck checks the operator deems necessary. Cargo interior inspections
are normally covered on higher level checks identified in their approved maintenance program. An
exterior inspection is defined as a general walk-around inspection conducted from ground level.

28 D621T401 REV D
The operator must clearly identify ETOPS related tasks so the frontline personnel can identify what
qualification is required for signature authority. Non-ETOPS qualified technicians can complete any tasks not
indicated as ETOPS related.
There are times when an ETOPS PDSC is not required but must be approved by the local authority and
identified in the operator’s ETOPS Maintenance Manual. An example of this situation would be where the
airplane diverted for a non-mechanical reason, possibly a medical emergency, and did not incur mechanical
problems during takeoff and landing. Relief has been provided for operations in the 75- and 90-minute
approval areas (see Appendix P of 14 CFR 121) where an ETOPS PDSC would not be required for the return
portion of the flight. This was driven by operators who found that the quick turnaround operation and
requirement to operate the APU while on the ground made it very difficult to perform this check.
Volume I of the ETOPS Guide contains appendices which provide PDSC Studies that were performed at
different stages of ETOPS development. These studies must be used while keeping in mind the context of the
time they were developed. For example, the 757/767 PDSC Study was completed during the early stages of
ETOPS where a non-ETOPS engine/airplane was reconfigured to ETOPS standards. The 777 PDSC Study
had the advantage of over 20 years of ETOPS operational experience and more importantly, was designed
with ETOPS considerations from the start of the program. Every aspect of the 777 PDSC considered ETOPS
during design and maintenance intervals. When you consider the early version of the 777 MPD, it contained
Transit items that were not driven by MSG-3 analysis, but were inserted to meet the requirements of AC 120-
42A, in effect at that time. Initially, 777 operators would have been able to use the MPD to meet all ETOPS
PDSC requirements, but the ISC decided to escalate those transit items due to some regulating authorities
requiring non-ETOPS operators to comply with these requirements. Volume I of the ETOPS Guide provides an
example 777 PDSC in the format of our other model types.
5.3.3 Dual Maintenance

Operators must consider the effects of human factor errors when working in the area of multiple, similar
systems identified as ETOPS Significant Systems. This means considering the possibility of inducing the same
or similar errors on the same or redundant (secondary) systems. This consideration could also be due to a
production flaw with a batch of assembly parts (i.e., O rings, gearbox seals, etc.).
Not all multiple systems require such stringent controls; for example, fueling the right and left fuel tanks is
obviously permissible. Servicing multiple units such as lights, Passenger Service Units (PSUs), or lavatories, is
permissible. The main concern of this program is with those systems where common cause failures are
involved or where a main system and its back-up are affected. If the oil level of both engines is low or both IDG
quantities are low on oil, servicing one side and not the other is not considered good maintenance practice.
Both sides must be serviced. In AC 120-42B, the FAA acknowledged that servicing of fluids is not considered
dual maintenance, but also indicates that improper servicing may adversely affect ETOPS operations.
The Boeing Company does not consider activities that include software upgrades/uploading dual maintenance
events. These activities have built-in logic to confirm successful processes and are normally accessed from a
single location.
AC 120-42B identifies two areas of Dual Maintenance that should be addressed in this document:
1. Dual Maintenance on the "same" ETOPS Significant System can be described as actions performed on
the same element of identical, but separate ETOPS Significant Systems during the same routine or non-
routine maintenance visit. Examples of this dual maintenance condition are; replacing the left and right
integrated drive generator; replacing the left and right oil filter; replacing the left and right fuel filter. They
are part of the same ATA chapter and affect redundancy characteristics of the ETOPS system design.
2. Dual Maintenance on "substantially similar" ETOPS Significant Systems specifically addresses
maintenance actions on engine driven components on both engines. An example of this dual
maintenance condition is; replacement of the number one integrated drive generator and the number two
engine driven hydraulic pump. Both are driven by the engine gearbox and have similar attach points and
the error could be applied to both engines. They are not in the same ATA chapter.

REV D D621T401 29
To prevent the possibility of dual maintenance, operators must have a program in place that protects against
inducing these errors and could include the following:
1. Whenever possible, schedule these tasks at different intervals or maintenance visits.
2. If the above is not possible, then the operator should:
i. Use separate technicians on each task, or
ii. Use an inspector or another qualified technician to observe the work being performed, and
iii. In either case listed above, include all verification procedures outlined in the operator’s approved
ETOPS Maintenance Program
iv. FAA AC 120-42B also provides additional relief for the operator for unusual situations. "On an
exception basis, the same ETOPS qualified technician, under the supervision of an ETOPS qualified
Centralized Maintenance Control Center person, may perform the dual maintenance and ground
verification methods only if an in-flight verification action is performed prior to the ETOPS entry point.”
The implementation of these preventative program elements is determined by the operator's ETOPS
Significant Systems List. This list is developed by the operator and approved by the local authority. The
regulation states that an airplane manufacturer should provide a “suggested or recommended" list for the
operator to use as a starting point for their own approved list. The requirements to have the operator and
approving authority develop this list together is good for the ETOPS program, gives them both ownership of the
list, and helps to drive it out to the frontline personnel. Boeing provides an ETOPS Significant Systems Guide
for the specific engine/airplane combination as an appendix to the applicable ETOPS Guide Volume I.
This program is targeted for the line maintenance environment where there is limited manpower and resources
available when performing maintenance on an ETOPS airplane. Generally, during heavy maintenance checks,
an inspection system or “buy back” system is in place where the additional procedure requirement is met.
Operators should monitor the reliability of their maintenance program to determine if the processes and
procedures in place satisfy the dual maintenance considerations required by the ETOPS regulation.
ETOPS maintenance programs throughout the industry manage these dual maintenance situations differently.
Some operators create a list of ETOPS significant tasks where they identify tasks that have dual maintenance
implications. These tasks can easily be marked on scheduled maintenance task cards but in the line
maintenance environment it is much more difficult to manage. Operators in some cases insert this list into their
ETOPS maintenance document and even in the airplane logbook for reference. The Centralized Maintenance
Control is a good resource to help manage these situations. Other operators choose to manage dual
maintenance by specific ATA chapter and engine tasks. This process would require the technicians to be
educated in the ETOPS training program in the areas of dual maintenance.
Some operators interpret this to mean that these tasks should be included in the Required Inspection Items
(RII) program. It is not necessary to define these ETOPS related tasks as RII for this requirement (although
some of these may actually be in the RII category). A typical RII program limits the number of personnel that
have this qualification and may not have them available at all stations. ETOPS Qualification should be defined
by each operator so it can fit into the organizational structure of the operation.
Dual maintenance is not always avoidable. In the heavy maintenance environment there are many tasks that
are scheduled that would fall under the dual maintenance category. This varies depending on the approved
scheduled maintenance program but certainly these situations are a probability. In the line maintenance
environment the possibility of dual maintenance is low but the available resources are minimal and the
operator must manage these situations through their approved ETOPS maintenance program.
In the event of dual maintenance activity, operators must have a positive ground verification to dispatch an
ETOPS flight. This is accomplished using the airplane manufacturer’s Instructions for Continued Airworthiness
(e.g., AMM, FIM, SRM, etc.) or other procedures approved in their maintenance program. There is no
requirement for a verification flight following maintenance action in this area. The use of a verification flight
should only be used when ground verification is not possible or the problem is historical (see Section 5.3.4 of
this document).

30 D621T401 REV D
Dual maintenance situations in the scheduled maintenance environment is not always avoidable due to the
large number of tasks being performed, however there are many more resources available to help protect
errors associated with these actions (more technicians, skilled work force, validated task cards, etc.). In the
line maintenance environment the possibility of a dual maintenance situation is more prevalent and there are
less resources available. The chance for a dual maintenance situation is very rare but operators should have
processes and procedures in place to protect against these errors.
Boeing has created some criteria to help operators identify ETOPS Dual Maintenance Tasks and they are
listed below.
Dual Maintenance Guidance Philosophy (Criteria)
To identify areas susceptible to human factor error as they relate to ETOPS, the following philosophy can be
used to develop a list derived from the recommended ETOPS Significant Systems List provided in the
applicable Boeing ETOPS Guide Volume I.
ETOPS regulation under AC 120-42B and 14 CFR § 121.374 (or equivalent) require operators to identify
ETOPS Significant Systems with the assistance of the manufacturer in order to adequately address dual
maintenance requirements that may arise during scheduled and unscheduled maintenance. Dual
Maintenance is defined as any maintenance performed that could induce the same fault into a redundant or
backup component in the same ETOPS Significant System (e.g., ATA24, ATA 28, etc.) or engine driven
component with similar attach procedures (e.g. left engine hydraulic pump and right engine generator).
Improper installation of these components could result in oil loss on both engines. Servicing is not considered
maintenance and is not impacted by Dual Maintenance requirements. Servicing is certainly important, but
design considerations and airline training can alleviate problems in this area.
Since we have identified the systems considered significant to ETOPS in the Boeing ETOPS Significant
Systems Guide, operators should review each of those systems (or the approved list in the operator ETOPS
maintenance program) and determine if possibilities exist for a technician to induce the same fault into a
similar system and/or an engine driven component with similar attach procedures. The determination can be
made by evaluating common mechanical tasks that historically have created this situation or an evaluation of
the maintenance tasks for new systems and airplane level of consequences of improper maintenance will
be used.
Historical tasks, and areas that could be considered as dual maintenance, are those that are mechanical in
nature and are managing fluid or pneumatics (fuel, oil, air, etc.) that may be used for control purposes. These
components can test positively on the ground using approved ground test procedures, and then develop some
leakage after a period of time which could be in the ETOPS portion of the flight. Some examples are engine
driven component installation, fuel couplings, pneumatic couplings, control pressure lines to actuators or
valves, etc.
The process will exclude systems that are electronic in nature or driven by software and ones that utilize
internal monitoring and fault detection. In these areas, a single technician can easily access two similar
systems from one terminal point. The risk of inducing the same human factor error into both areas is minimal
due to the design of the system and software, especially those systems which include an operational and/or
functional verification check following maintenance action.
Consideration should be given to the difficulty of the task, accessibility to the component, and adequate testing
procedures. As stated earlier, improved design characteristics have reduced human factor error and have
helped operators concentrate on the few problem areas that are possible during maintenance actions.
Examples of less difficult tasks could be; removal and replacement of a racked component; the removal and
replacement of a control or indication card; the removal and replacement of an indicator; etc.
The Boeing Company does not provide a list of dual maintenance tasks as there are varying approved ETOPS
programs in the industry. These programs may have a different list of ETOPS Significant Systems based on
their own experiences and reliability tracking reports. This guidance is available to operators when developing
a dual maintenance program.

REV D D621T401 31
5.3.4 Verification Program

ETOPS operators must have a program in place that ensures a positive resolution to system discrepancies as
they relate to the operator’s ETOPS Significant Systems and other significant areas. The two forms of
verification are ground verification and flight verification. It is most desirable to verify system integrity during a
ground verification test.
Ground verification tests should be accomplished utilizing the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICAs),
such as the AMM, FIM, SRM, IPC, or operator-specific procedures. These instructions include the use of Built-
in Test Equipment (BITE), operational tests, and functional tests. Normal engine ground checks for leaks, as
defined in the AMM, are considered acceptable for restoring design integrity.

NOTE: ICAs are procedures and information that are the manufacturer's recommendations to service, inspect, test,
maintain, restore or repair the airplane system to an airworthy condition per design certification
requirements. The airplane was designed for safety and reliability per the CFRs for approved operations
taking into account operational usage, environmental effects, airplane aging, and potential hazards. These
ICAs were developed by the manufacturer to enable airline operators to maintain the airplane to the safety
and reliability standards inherent with the design certification. When possible, ICA maintenance tasks have
been validated during the applicable service ready program, flight test program and ongoing validation
program. ICA maintenance tasks are continuously improved through service experience and input from the
regulatory agencies, safety organizations, airplane designers, suppliers and airline operators. ICA data has
been reviewed and accepted by the local regulatory agency at the manufacturer.
Actions requiring verification of maintenance performed on systems significant to ETOPS as stated in
AC 120-42B:
1. In-Flight Engine Shutdown (IFSD): Whenever an engine has been shut down on the previous flight - for
reasons described in 14 CFR 121 regarding ETOPS - the cause of such action must be investigated (see
the Propulsion System Monitoring Program for details). Corrective action must be taken to resolve the
problem and verify results prior to the next flight.
2. Significant System Failure: Whenever a system failure has been reported in any of the ETOPS
Significant Systems, corrective action must be taken and such action verified to be effective prior to the
next flight. The operator has the option to use relief from the MEL for dispatch if available, but the final
resolution should prevent its recurrence.
3. Adverse Trends: Any adverse trends in the Engine Condition Monitoring system parameters or engine
and APU oil consumption rate, any cases of repeat discrepancies in ETOPS Significant Systems, or any
adverse trends in failure rates revealed by the operator's ETOPS Reliability Program must be investigated
to determine the problem, and corrective action must be taken and verified prior to dispatching on a
subsequent ETOPS flight.
4. Prescribed Events Which Require Other Action: The FAA-approved MMEL for the engine/airplane
combination being used and the airline's MEL, which may be more restrictive, identifies dispatch
requirements for ETOPS flights that are different than for non-ETOPS flights. Under certain conditions,
airplanes may be dispatched with maintenance deferred. If the failed system falls in any of the categories
above (as an example, requires verification), the verification program must include procedures to ensure
that maintenance action subsequently taken on these deferred items is also verified using the applicable
method (BITE, AMM procedure, ground run, or in-flight test) within the prescribed time limit set by
the MEL.
In the event that ground verification is not sufficient or acceptable to the operator, an in-flight verification can be
conducted to confirm operational integrity. The procedures for this type of verification program should be
detailed in the operator maintenance and flight operations ETOPS Document. Coordination between both
divisions is critical and should be included in the training program curriculum for both organizations.

32 D621T401 REV D
If it is determined that an in-flight verification is required, it is acceptable to use the non-ETOPS portion of a
revenue ETOPS flight (the first 60 minutes). Coordination between the flight crew and the Maintenance Control
Center (MCC), or responsible organization, is essential. The MCC should inform the crew of the maintenance
performed, advise them of any flight restrictions, and what to look for in order to verify that the maintenance
action has been successful.
Each operator would build their own program, but as an example; the flight crew and MCC would sustain
communication during the portion of the flight where the system in question is being verified (within the first
60 minutes). Once the system is verified as normal operation, the MCC would release the aircraft for ETOPS
operation. The flight crew would then continue on the ETOPS flight, or select the alternate ETOPS route if
dispatched on a non-ETOPS route originally. The flight crew would document the results of the system
verification and the technician at the arrival station would clear the log book item. The MCC has the authority
to release the airplane for ETOPS authorization following successful system verification by the flight crew.
Operators should have processes in place for verification regardless of ETOPS or non-ETOPS applicability.
As an example, an engine change is not significant to an ETOPS type of operation; it is significant to all flight
operations. Operators should use consistent procedures for ground verification procedures that include test
cell and on wing systems checks. Engine mounting design and Quick Engine Change (QEC) ability have
reduced errors associated with engine removal and replacement. Flight crew members should however, be
aware of this engine change and be prompted to monitor engine parameters for the first portion of the flight. It
is not recommended that this procedure affect the ETOPS status of the airplane. Regulating authorities will
review existing programs to verify that it has sufficient safety and reliability qualities before approval will be
granted. However, there is no regulatory requirement to perform a verification or test flight following single or
dual engine change procedures.
Verification flights following any dual maintenance activities are not required by regulation. Positive ground
verification using the manuals described in this section is all that is required and certifies the airplane is
ETOPS capable. There may be times when an operator chooses to use the benefit of a verification flight but
these should only be used in extreme cases described in this section. The operator must have confidence in
their approved maintenance program and be able to recognize discrepancies or historical problems that
require elevating the maintenance action.

5.3.5 Task Identification

Operators are required to identify all ETOPS specific tasks that require an ETOPS qualified technician
signature or manage it through other processes, like packaging. ETOPS qualification is defined by the
operator training and qualification program.
These tasks must be:
1. Identified on the operator’s scheduled maintenance work forms and related instructions, or parceled
together and identified as an ETOPS package.
2. Accomplished by ETOPS qualified maintenance personnel if the operator does not identify ETOPS
related tasks in their current maintenance program.
3. Verified per the operator’s ETOPS Verification Program in the event that maintenance is performed on an
ETOPS airplane by personnel who are not ETOPS trained.
Operators should compare their approved ETOPS Significant Systems List to associated tasks that they feel
could affect system reliability. The program should allow flexibility so the operator can make changes and/or
improvements as they gain experience on the engine/airplane combination.
There are different techniques in the industry relative to determining tasks requiring ETOPS qualification.
Some operators identify AMM and MPD tasks associated with their list of ETOPS Significant Systems down to
the specific ATA subchapter. These would most likely be associated with installation and test procedures and
specific to the systems identified as significant to ETOPS. Other operators will only identify specific systems

REV D D621T401 33
requiring ETOPS qualification. The qualification requirements for the environment (line or hangar) would
dictate how the task cards were identified. In most cases the qualification for signature authority may differ
between the line and hangar.
The hangar environment in most cases use routine tasks cards that can be easily identified for the technician
however there are non routine cards that would need to be identified as well. The line maintenance
environment does not work from routine tasks cards and need some guidance or training to help the technician
know when he/she is working in an area requiring special qualification. For line maintenance operations, some
operators create a list of tasks that are available to the technician and others rely on their ETOPS training to
ensure the technician knows when he/she is required to have special qualification. Operators may use a
maintenance control center to help manage this.
In addition to identifying tasks requiring ETOPS qualification, ETOPS operators will typically identify tasks that
have dual maintenance implications. Again, this is easy enough to do on routine task cards for schedule
maintenance, but protection on the line is important. Some operators create a list of tasks for the line
technician and others rely on training or just separate engine tasks. It is important to try and identify any
ETOPS significant task that may have dual maintenance implications. The criteria provided in section 5.3.3 will
help determine dual maintenance tasks.
The Boeing scheduled maintenance task cards from the MPD do not identify tasks requiring ETOPS
qualification. This is because ETOPS operators create their own list of ETOPS Significant Systems from which
the tasks derive from. Most operators do use the Boeing ETOPS Significant Systems List but for those that do
not, it would force them to use the Boeing guidance. ETOPS regulation requires that the airplane
manufacturer provide guidance to ETOPS operator's relative processes and procedures, not be prescriptive.

5.3.6 Centralized Maintenance Control Center (CMCC) Procedures

The requirement for a CMCC is in most ETOPS regulations throughout the world; however, AMC 20-6 Rev 2
does not make a CMCC a requirement. Regardless, these operators still have a mechanism in place that
manages their day to day ETOPS program. If an airline has a CMCC it would be logical that this entity provide
the daily coordination for ETOPS.
For those operators who do use a maintenance control type of organization for ETOPS, the duties and
responsibilities of personnel in this organization must be defined and documented in the ETOPS Maintenance
Document. Operators can delegate this authority to a level or position that is monitoring all ETOPS airplanes
or a specific engine/airplane combination. This flexibility is to allow for 24 hour coverage and to improve on
communication and response time prior to dispatch.
Personnel in the CMCC/MCC (or equivalent) should have the same training and qualifications as defined for
signature authority. Final authority to determine airplane ETOPS authorization or verification flight
requirements should rest with one authority. Discussions around all supporting elements should involve any
frontline technicians, supervision, third party maintenance, and flight crew to make the proper decision. In
most cases, this organization is part of the overarching Operations Control Center (OCC). This provides face-
to-face communication between maintenance and flight operations for dispatch considerations. Operators
typically use this MCC to determine acceptable oil consumption, verification flights, flight back limits, and other
areas requiring final decision making. This helps to provide consistency in dispatch procedures.
The CMCC/MCC delegate would follow established procedures to ensure an ETOPS flight was not dispatched
without proper maintenance action or MEL procedures after an engine in-flight shut down, ETOPS Significant
Systems failure, or discovery of significant adverse trends in system performance.
Maintenance performed at main base operations may not need as much support or guidance from the
centralized MCC, but turn-around stations, particularly new stations, would rely on this organization to help
manage the airplane in and out of the station. New station and new airplane part allocation, part pooling,
tooling, and engine pooling would be part of their responsibility.

34 D621T401 REV D
5.3.7 ETOPS Parts Control Program

Operators are required to develop an ETOPS Parts Control Program to ensure that the engine/airplane
combination used for ETOPS is maintained in the required ETOPS configuration. The applicable CMP
Standard determines the configuration of ETOPS engine/airplane combinations and, through SBs, identifies
any special parts required as a minimum standard. Parts that are not approved for ETOPS, or are temporarily
approved until the modifications are incorporated, are so noted in the Illustrated Parts Catalog (IPC) or
Illustrated Parts Data (IPD) for the 787 airplane.
Whenever parts are replaced during maintenance activities, the IPC/IPD should be used by the mechanics as
the primary guide for installing the correct parts. The Boeing IPC/IPD is not revised on the same schedule as
the CMP. Therefore, it is necessary for the ETOPS operator to issue temporary revisions (or other paperwork)
to identify these changes to the mechanic until the next revision of the IPC is distributed.
Some of these ETOPS parts have non-ETOPS equivalent parts that are interchangeable but not authorized for
ETOPS. As a general practice, it is not recommended to install these parts prior to a non-ETOPS flight leg,
especially when a subsequent ETOPS leg is scheduled unless specific processes are identified in the
approved ETOPS maintenance program. If it is absolutely necessary to install non-ETOPS parts on a
temporary basis (due to lack of availability, for example) the ETOPS Parts Control Program must contain
procedures to notify flight and maintenance crews of the deviation and ensure that the part is replaced with the
correct ETOPS part before dispatching the airplane on an ETOPS flight. The airplane must be removed from
ETOPS eligibility until the ETOPS part is installed.
Since this practice requires that a given part be removed and replaced twice for a given discrepancy, it should
be employed very rarely. For any repair action performed, there is always the possibility (however small) that
parts my be left off, left loose or damaged, resulting in the introduction of a new malfunction. When parts are
unnecessarily removed and replaced, the chances for this kind of maintenance problem is increased.
As a part of the ETOPS Parts Control Program, the operator may want to assemble a Flyaway Kit (FAK). The
FAK would contain spare parts that might be needed to effect repairs when the airplane has to land at line
stations where parts are unavailable or difficult to obtain. The FAK could also include such items as tires and a
supply of engine/APU oil. The contents of the FAK should be based on actual usage. It may be necessary for
the operator to monitor parts usage over a 6 to 12-month period to determine which parts and what quantities
are needed. The FAK should also be reviewed periodically to ensure that only necessary parts are included.

5.3.8 ETOPS Event-Oriented Reliability Program

Operators must develop an ETOPS reliability program, or enhance any existing reliability program or CASS
program to meet ETOPS requirements. This program should be designed to identify and prevent any ETOPS
related problems. It should be event-oriented and incorporate a reporting procedure for critical events
detrimental to ETOPS in addition to items required by FAR 121.703 (or local regulation equivalent).
An ETOPS event is defined as a system malfunction, degradation or other in-flight event that requires the crew
to make a decision whether to return to the departure station, divert or continue under an increased level of
alertness – regardless of whether it relates specifically to a two-engine airplane.
In should be noted that most ETOPS Relevant Events have non-technical causes such as weather, passenger
medical emergencies, bird-strikes, crew, maintenance errors, etc.
In addition to the reporting requirements of FAR 121.703 (or equivalent), reporting the following events should
be done within 96 hours of the event or the time required under local regulation:
1. IFSDs, except planned IFSDs for flight training purposes
2. Diversions and/or turnbacks for failures, malfunctions, or defects associated with any airplane engine
or system
3. Uncommanded power changes or surges

REV D D621T401 35
4. Inability to control the engine or obtain desired power or thrust
5. Inadvertent fuel loss or unavailability, or uncorrectable fuel imbalance in flight
6. Failures, malfunctions or defects associated with ETOPS Significant Systems
7. Any event that would jeopardize the safe flight and landing of the airplane

A conventional, statistically-based reliability program allows the operator to monitor the event rates (i.e., pilot
reports) dispatch delays, cancellations and other discrepancies. This type of program is based on monthly
event rates and three month rolling averages of those rates (for data smoothing). This approach provides the
operator with alerts to possible problem areas and serves as the basis for investigations into those problems.
Small fleets, however, do not provide enough data to be statistically meaningful. Therefore, an event-oriented
reliability program should be used for ETOPS fleets. This requires that each event (as an example, failure,
removal, and pilot reports), be investigated individually to detect any specific problems areas. This
investigation is, more often than not, just a general review of recent events to determine if any detrimental
conditions or trends are noted. Most of the time, a full engineering investigation is not required for such events.
If problems are noted, then a more complete investigation should be implemented by the Engineering
Department.
The ETOPS Reliability Program, required by 14 CFR § 121.374, AC 120-42B, and AMC 20-6 Rev 2
concentrates on events that are related to the ETOPS mission. This includes such items as those listed earlier
in this section, as well as items related to the systems identified in the approved ETOPS Significant Systems
List.
Whenever a problem occurs that causes an ETOPS event, the cause could be in one of the four areas
listed below.
1. Maintenance personnel are not performing the maintenance procedures correctly.
Action: Provide necessary training for maintenance technicians.
2. The maintenance procedures used are inadequate for attaining acceptable reliability.
Action: Develop new, effective maintenance procedures.
3. Incorrect parts being used by the mechanic or the wrong parts are being received from the parts supplier.
Action: Check part numbers, part specifications and parts supplier for correction of the deficiency.
4. If none of the above conditions result from the investigation, there may be a need for equipment or part
redesign. This requires coordination with the manufacturer. The operator must provide the manufacturer
with the necessary data to verify the need for redesign.
These events may be the result of a one-time event but the investigation will identify a problem and permit
rectification earlier than would occur with a statistically based program using alert levels. This approach also
identifies problems which may affect other ETOPS operators and the information can be disseminated
accordingly.
Recognizing when the event or system related problem becomes repetitive is essential to ensuring the mission
has the required reliability and redundancy supporting ETOPS. Maintenance actions should be elevated at
each occurrence and the operator will need to make decisions on the availability of the aircraft for ETOPS
flights. Removing airplanes from ETOPS capability is a difficult decision to make but the operator must have
the processes in place to perform such actions. Elevating the maintenance action to resolve the problem is
much better for the operation and may require additional resources to manage like a technical team of
troubleshooters.

36 D621T401 REV D
5.3.9 Propulsion System Monitoring

Engine IFSDs for each engine/airplane combination, are monitored by the FAA for the entire world fleet. The
IFSD Rate gives an indication to the manufacturer and regulating authority as to the overall engine reliability of
the fleet. Supporting statistical information can be found on myboeingfleet.com, Extended Operations web
site, under Statistics.
The IFSD Rates for the world fleet represented below are the "type design" requirements to be maintained for
each engine/airplane combination for ETOPS approval. All IFSDs are calculated over a 12-month rolling
average. There has only been one occurrence where an engine type has lost its ETOPS certification due to a
type design problem.
• 0.05 shut downs per 1,000 engine hours for 120-minute ETOPS
• 0.02/1000 for up to 180-minute ETOPS and 207 minutes
• 0.01/1000 for beyond 180 minutes, except 207-minute

If the "world fleet" average IFSD Rate for a particular engine/airplane combination exceeds the threshold
values above, ETOPS type design approval could be temporarily withdrawn for the entire fleet until the cause
of the shutdown has been determined and rectification of the problem has been accomplished. The FAA, the
airframe and engine manufacturers and the airlines using that engine/airplane combination will work together
to identify the problem and determine appropriate corrective measures. When the manufacturers and
operators have complied with the appropriate actions and have satisfied the FAA, ETOPS type design
approval may then be reinstated for the engine/airplane combination and for the airlines previously approved
to conduct ETOPS flights with that engine/airplane combination. Proactive communication to the Aircraft
Certification Office reduces the possibility of losing ETOPS capability of the configuration.
In addition, each airline must monitor its own IFSD Rate and report occurrences to the regulatory authority.
The time, date and flight statistics should be recorded along with the nature of the incident and the corrective
action taken. Flight statistics include the origin and destination of the flight, the portion of the flight in which the
shutdown occurred (i.e., during climb, cruise, etc.) and whether the flight was continued, diverted, or turned
back. This IFSD Rate gives the operator and approving authority an accurate measurement of the specific fleet
reliability.
The FAA Propulsion System Reliability Assessment Board (PSRAB) will determine if the corrective action
taken was adequate. The PSRAB will also determine if other carriers should be notified of the incident and if
they will need to alter their operations and/or maintenance activities as a result of the shutdown investigation.
The new fleet statistics are then calculated.
The IFSD Rates represented below are "alert levels" that the operator would use to determine when additional
efforts are necessary to determine the cause of the increasing rate. You will notice that the rate is higher than
that for the type design approval. These alert rates are designed to be used as a tool for the operator, not a
reason for removing or altering ETOPS approval by the approving authority. Those regulations that do not use
these set alerts levels will use a table that represents a propulsion system reliability objective. The outcome is
pretty close to the alerts levels identified in AC 120-42B shown below.
• 0.05 shutdowns per 1,000 engine hours for 120-minute ETOPS
• 0.03/1000 for up to 180-minute ETOPS and 207 minutes
• 0.02/1000 for beyond 180 minutes, except 207-minute

An immediate evaluation must be made by the operator and the approving authority. This must also be made
in consultation with the FAA's PSRAB. It is important to note that both the engine and airplane manufacturer
will be involved with any IFSD investigation to determine if the problem was design related or produced by an
engine system component. The airline wants to know if it is a process or procedural problem that they need to
address. The operator should focus on every IFSD and not the rate. Taking care of each IFSD will result in

REV D D621T401 37
maintaining a positive IFSD rate. If the alert level is reached, the operator must submit a plan for corrective
action to their authority so the ETOPS operating authority is not reduced or removed.
In order for an operator to acquire and maintain ETOPS approval, the operator's ability to achieve and maintain
this IFSD Rate needs to be assessed, including comparison of the operator's IFSD Rate with other airlines as
well as with the world fleet. The assessment also considers the operator's past record on the engine/airplane
combination used for ETOPS and similar airplanes in its fleet whether or not they are used for ETOPS flights.
The calculation of the IFSD Rate should be done on the basis of a 12-month rolling average. When this
number exceeds the target values above, AC 120-42B and AMC 20-6 Rev 2 requires action to be taken.
However, for small fleets, one shutdown can cause the rate to exceed the alert level. The regulatory
authorities and the airlines should understand this fact and realize that the IFSD Rate is not the sole judge in
determining an airline's ability to fly ETOPS. Whenever an IFSD occurs, it must be investigated to determine
the cause and to identify corrective actions that will not only fix the immediate problem, but will also prevent or
reduce the probability of recurrence in the future. When determining whether or not an operator's ETOPS
approval should be reduced or revoked, the single shutdown should not be the primary factor or the only factor
considered. The size of the fleet and the operator's experience and record with other engine/airplane
combinations should also be taken into account. One IFSD on a small fleet can certainly cause a high
IFSD Rate.
AC 120-42B provides clear instructions for the use of these alert levels, including recognition for small fleet
sizes. It states that they are not designed to be used as a punishment target for operators that have exceeded
this level. They should instead be used as a measurement tool to evaluate the effectiveness of any procedures
established to get the rate under control.

5.3.10 Engine Condition Monitoring (ECM)

The ECM standard is a preventive maintenance activity that helps to ensure minimum margins are maintained
to support single engine diversions. It is also used to detect early deterioration of the engine to allow for
corrective action before safe operation of the engine is affected. Although the ECM is available to all operators
for all engines, its use is optional. For ETOPS operators, however, its use is required since ETOPS margins
must be maintained to ensure sufficient performance during a single engine diversion.
Engine manufacturers provide software and training on their ECM for their own engines. All of the
manufacturers' engines are addressed in the software they provide. There may be no differences in parameter
limits for ETOPS and non-ETOPS operation. These programs delineate trends in engine performance which
are useful in defining gradual engine deterioration. Although these programs are not likely to predict an
impending IFSD, the data they provide can be useful in maintenance planning. For ETOPS approval, the
operator should show evidence that information derived from the ECM is reviewed at frequent intervals,
preferably daily. AC 120-42B states that the recommended maximum interval for data analysis is five days;
however, the best industry practice recommends that analysis be accomplished daily or as often as practical.
Engine limit margins should account for the affects of additional engine loading demands which may be
required during an IFSD diversion (e.g., bleed air, electrical power, thrust setting to maintain the drift down
profile, etc.). The program should also consider the rate of oil consumption at these higher power settings, to
see if it is proportional to limit margin changes.
During each ETOPS or non-ETOPS flight, the ECM data is collected after the airplane has reached the stable
cruise portion of the flight. The applicable data includes such parameters as EPR, N1, N2, N3, EGT, FF, as
examples. ECM data is taken either manually by the flight crew or automatically by electronic means. For the
manual method, the data is written into the flight logbook or a separate document. From there it can be
manually loaded into an electronic program to track trends and limit margins, or automatically logged to track
trends and limit margins by Propulsion Engineering. Depending on the programming software for the automatic
system, the data is transmitted to engineering by radio in flight or after landing. At minimum, it is
recommended that the manual system be in place to support data collection when the automatic function
is inoperative.

38 D621T401 REV D
Engine manufacturers are providing this basic service to operators to meet the requirements of ETOPS
regulation, but this service also provides additional protection using alert levels and immediate reporting
mechanisms to alert the airline of possible internal problems that should be corrected prior to the next ETOPS
flight. This can also be accomplished at the airline level if the resources are available but the engine
manufacturer has the benefit of many more hours of experience from the entire world fleet and other model
airplanes. Only the basic ECM program is required but some operators have selected the use of these
proactive programs to help manage their fleet.

5.3.11 Oil Consumption Monitoring Program (OCMP)

The OCMP is a preventive maintenance activity for determining the "normal" oil consumption rate for engines
and APU and then monitoring these rates over time (flight by flight for ETOPS) to detect any increases in the
consumption rate. Once an abnormal increase has been detected (sudden increase, one flight spiking, etc.),
an investigation should be initiated to determine the cause of the increasing rate and to initiate corrective
action before a malfunction or engine shutdown occurs.
An OCMP consists of (1) verifying the engine and APU oil levels, (2) servicing each unit as necessary, (3)
documenting the amount of oil added (even if zero), and (4) calculating the oil consumption rate (i.e., quarts or
liters consumed per hour). These four steps must be completed prior to an ETOPS flight, the first three steps
being done by the mechanic. However, the fourth step can be done by the mechanic, line maintenance
supervisor, MCC, or the program can have an automatic function that can be accessed by any of the above. At
each check, a comparison should be made to determine if the consumption rate is acceptable or if a problem is
indicated. All problems must be resolved prior to the dispatch of an ETOPS flight.
With the improvement of new engine design and the associated low oil consumption rate, operators have the
ability to use flight deck indication to determine oil quantity. For the APU, the EICAS reading is acceptable due to
the difficulty in accessing the APU sight glass. For airplanes without EICAS and for airlines who do not have
APU readout on the EICAS, other methods must be used on the APU. New technology and in-service
problems associated with servicing and verifying oil level prior to each flight have driven operators to use a
dispatch minimum while verifying quantity using flight deck displays. The consumption rate is continually
evaluated and monitored prior to an ETOPS flight and the technician is required to recognize an abnormal
consumption/loss rate from the previous flight.
The intent of the OCMP is to verify that sufficient oil is available to support a single engine diversion and any
increased thrust requirements for the engine to maintain the required flight profile. For the APU, the rate must
support any required operation supporting a lost generator or an IFSD. A positive oil APU oil consumption rate also
provides dispatch flexibility for MMEL relief that requires continuous APU operation. Oil quantity verification using
onboard equipment that includes an oil consumption rate based on a flight-by-flight usage would be sufficient
to support this requirement. It must be approved by the local regulating authority. The on-board equipment is
much more reliable today than in older model airplanes and there is always concern about the human factor
element of leaving the cap off of the unit. This procedure must be approved by the local regulating authority but
operators are moving toward this procedural change due to the improved oil consumption of the engines today.
This type of program can provide better options at down line stations where resources are limited. A technician
could verify engine and/or APU oil quantity without going to the engine. A minimum dispatch quantity would
need to be established with consideration for the particular consumption rate of the engine. The technician
would still have to be able to recognize a consumption or loss problem with the oil system.
Some airlines provide mechanics with special forms for recording engine and APU oil quantities added.
Others provide space on the PDSC (or Transit) Task Card and/or the Aircraft Logbook for this information. In
either case, this information is used to calculate the oil consumption rates for each flight and to watch for
increasing trends by logging this data in a chart or table. The consumption rate calculation varies from
operator to operator, some require the technician to perform the calculation, others have the Maintenance
Control Center perform this function, and others have the consumption rate trended out in a computer system
and available for viewing. In this case the technician must be able to recognize a problem from the previous
flight to protect the next ETOPS flight.

REV D D621T401 39
The engine manufacturer may recommend that oil analysis (Spectrographic Oil Analysis Program, SOAP) be
performed periodically on the engine. Although this is not an ETOPS requirement, the oil sample collection
needed for this activity can, as a convenience, be included in the oil consumption monitoring program.

5.3.12 APU In-Flight Start Program

Prior to ETOPS, the APU was primarily used on the ground and sometimes started at lower altitudes just
before or during descent. After ETOPS was considered, it was noted that the APU would be needed in flight
whenever an IDG on an engine was inoperative during flight due to engine shutdown or IDG malfunction. This
requires that the APU be capable of starting in-flight and at high altitudes (up to the ceiling of the airplane).
Although some modifications were made to the APU to accommodate this requirement, it may be necessary
for the operator to perform high altitude starts periodically to ensure that the equipment and its associated
maintenance program provide sufficient reliability for ETOPS. For operators seeking ETOPS approval on an
existing fleet, they must understand what the fleet in-flight start reliability currently is. This requires a fairly
aggressive in-flight start sampling completed approximately once every 30 days or whatever is agreed upon
with the regulating authority. When determining a baseline in-flight start reliability, the entire fleet does not
have to be sampled, but sampled enough to ensure that the rate is at or above 95%. If a 95% success rate is
achieved for high altitude starts during this period, the test may be run on a sampling basis from that point on
and can be escalated to 120 days or higher depending on the agreement with the approving authority. On
delivery airplanes when purchased from the manufacturer, the APU is delivered with an established start
reliability of 95% or greater determined during flight test. In this case, the only requirement from the authority
should be to provide a sampling of in-flight start capability, periodically proving greater than 95% start reliability.
In-flight start "sampling" can be defined as one sampling up to or 120 days or higher, but will depend on the
maintenance program in place, experience on the airplane, and possibly other areas identified by the
regulating authority. If high altitude start problems arise after this sampling period, they must be investigated
and corrective action taken to resolve the problem. The APU High Altitude Start Program should be
implemented or re-implemented to ensure that the problem resolution is effective.

NOTE: The mission profile of the 737-2/3/4/5/6/7/8/9 series aircraft can be shorter and somewhat unique, and
therefore certain operators may elect to not have an APU In-flight Start Program as part of their ETOPS
maintenance program. This is because the operator may start the APU prior to departure or just prior to
the ETOPS entry point as required by the CMP, Part D, Section 24, Item 1a (737NG). These operators
should take care to ensure that the APU will start prior to ETOPS entry to avoid a costly diversion or turn
back required by the QRH. There are provisions for the 737NG operator to use the APU in an On-Demand
capacity based on the CMP requirements in Part D, Section 2.4, Item 1b.

TYPICAL APU START PROGRAM (Excluding the 737NG using APU On-Demand)
APU in-flight starts can be attempted on the following flights:
1. Non-ETOPS flights with mission requirements to ensure a two-hour cold soaked condition with the APU
in ETOPS configuration per the current CMP document.
2. The return portion (to home station) of ETOPS flights that are long enough to support a two-hour cold
soaked condition.

The flight crew will do the following:

1. Attempt to start the APU sometime during the one-hour period prior to top of descend, or at such a time to
ensure a two-hour cold soak at altitude.
2. Multiple start attempts (the industry standard is three) may be performed within the limits stated in the
Airplane Flight Manual and the Airplane Maintenance Manual (starter duty cycle), Chapter 49.
Consideration should be given to performing the final start attempt within the route or track constraints as
defined by ATC.

40 D621T401 REV D
The flight crew will make an entry in the Aircraft Flight Log for each flight during which an APU in-flight start is
attempted. The entry will include the following information:
1. Departure and arrival stations;
2. Altitude of each start attempt;
3. Statement that attempt was or was not successful;
4. Outside air temperature (OAT);
5. Indicate if the APU shut down after reaching 95%;
6. Indicate if the APU failed to start on ground.

After a failed start and once positive correction has been accomplished, it is good maintenance practice that
the flight crew should be notified on the next flight to implement another in-flight start.
The Reliability Department will review each in-flight start logbook entry and complete an APU In-flight Start
Report. For failed attempts, a copy of the report will be sent to the FAA certificate holding office.
When developing this program, maintenance and flight operations should work closely together to identify and
document the best practices for the program. This provides better implementation and coordination by frontline
technicians and flight crew.
Some operators may choose to maintain all of their APU in compliance with the CMP even if mounted on non-
ETOPS airplanes. This may be for better operational reliability for non-ETOPS airplanes and/or for additional
ETOPS spares availability.
Traditionally the APU in-flight responsibility was to provide a back-up source for electrical power in the event of
a generator loss. On some airplanes, consideration is now given to the available pneumatic source during
ETOPS operation. Operators should consult their MEL for restrictions around both electrical and pneumatic
(beyond 180-minute) requirements.
For many years, the 737NG had only one option for ETOPS relative to the APU requirements. This was to run
the APU in the ETOPS portion of the flight. Some operators who initiate an APU in-flight start just prior to
ETOPS entry have initiated an APU in-flight start program relative to the requirements in AC120-42B or AMC
20-6 Rev 2 or as defined in this section. Those that choose to start the APU on the ground and run through the
ETOPS portion of the flight have not initiated this program. There is no requirement for a 737NG ETOPS
operator to initiate an APU in-flight start program unless they are operating under the provisions of APU On-
Demand. There has been a CMP certification that allows the 737NG to maintain the APU in an on-demand
capacity during the ETOPS portion of the flight. There are specific CMP requirements that must be
implemented and approved by the local authority and include engine generator improvements, an engine
condition monitoring program for the APU, and an in-flight start program. The in-flight start program is more
restrictive than the one defined in AC 120-42B and AMC20-6Rev 2 and this section. The CMP Supplement,
residing in the 737NG ETOPS Guide Volume I contains the guidance to put an APU in-flight start program
together to meet the requirements of the CMP. This is found in Part D of the CMP Supplement.
It is important to note that the CMP provides the authorization to implement the APU On-Demand Program;
however, there is an AFM restriction that must be removed. Operators are advised to coordinate this AFM
revision through their local Boeing Field Service Representative.
With the 777 APU In-Flight Start Program requiring a two-hour cold soak, the resulting temperature of the oil in
the APU may approach limits of performance requirements. The use of a Type I oil rather than Type II oil
reduces the viscosity of the oil in the cold-soaked APU, and reduces the potential for skidding damage to the
APU thrust bearings.

REV D D621T401 41
5.3.13 ETOPS Maintenance Training Program

The operator's approved maintenance training program must be modified to ensure that any mechanic or
technician who is involved with ETOPS airplanes has been trained on all maintenance aspects of the extended
operations. The ETOPS training program should include training on basic ETOPS philosophy as well as the
policies and procedures identified in the ETOPS Maintenance Document. This training would be in addition to
or supplement of any licensing or signature authority training requirements.
The training would include instruction on the maintenance procedures, forms, paperwork and reporting
procedures unique to the airline's particular operation. Usually, an airline provides four (4) to six (6) hours of
ETOPS training per technician but certainly varies from operator to operator. In most cases, operators will
have a recurrent training schedule of every two years but again will vary between operators, and is not a
regulatory requirement. The follow-up training is used to address changes to the engine/airplane configuration
(CMP Standard), any changes in ETOPS fleet makeup, and any procedural or paperwork changes that have
been made by the airline or the regulatory authority. Also, personnel may move in and out of ETOPS exposure
as priorities and operational needs change and may require a refresher course.
Training should also be given to any management and administrative personnel who are involved with ETOPS.
This training could be primarily tailored to their specific function within the ETOPS operation with cursory
information on the other aspects of the ETOPS program. Everyone involved with this program should be
aware of the special nature of ETOPS and the importance of a company-wide commitment to ETOPS. Also,
third party maintenance technicians employed by the operator must be trained on the specific ETOPS
procedures prior to working on the engine/airplane combination. Third party maintenance providers must have
an acceptable level of systems training and any required practical training that is equal to the requirement for
internal airline personnel. Operators can review third party training records and decide whether to accept the
training or require supplemental training to equal their own requirements.
14 CFR § 121.374 requires that the ETOPS PDSC and the release of an airplane on an ETOPS flight be
accomplished and signed off by an ETOPS qualified maintenance person. Each operator must define what
constitutes an ETOPS Qualified person and what signature authority is required for specific maintenance actions.
AC 120-42B identifies the different environments of Line Maintenance and Heavy Maintenance organizational
structure and states that a technician working ETOPS Significant Systems in a Heavy maintenance
environment must be appropriately trained for ETOPS, but need not be ETOPS certified. This is due to the
inspection system that is generally in place in this environment. The line maintenance environment does not
always have the luxury of an inspection system or even a second set of eyes when performing ETOPS tasks
and may require different considerations.
Recurrent training is not a requirement but certainly has been proven to reduce procedural and documentation
problems. This process can also allow for movement of personnel in and out of ETOPS exposure areas with
minimal training while minimizing errors induced by a person being away from these procedures for a long
period of time.
AC 120-42B also makes reference to the need for practical training to gain proficiency on ETOPS systems and
level out the experience of supporting technicians. The amount of practical training may vary for each
technician based on their industry experience and work area (Line, Base, Shop, etc.) and should be
considered when developing the training program.
When planning for a new airplane acquisition, consideration should be given to practical training to support
ETOPS qualifications when/if required. Each operator will define their own requirements but, if practical
training is required, operators should consider developing their own program using their most experienced
frontline technicians as instructors/qualifiers. Qualifying these instructors should be a short process as
consideration should be given to their skills and experience. Once they are qualified, they can then take other
technicians through the program to qualify them. This should be developed prior to airplane delivery and
scheduled as soon as the airplane arrives to cover essential personnel needed for initial operation. Generally
these types of programs include a checklist that identifies servicing, inspection, and routine tasks the operator

42 D621T401 REV D
considers necessary for day to day operation. Demonstrated capability, rather than the removal of each
component identified on the list should be acceptable.
In summary, there is no definition around the contents of the required ETOPS training, but it should be in
addition to any certification or licensing requirement for the specific engine airframe combination. The only
requirement is that those personnel associated with the ETOPS program, receive ETOPS training and that
completion of this training and qualification is properly identified and documented in their training records.
These records should be accessible to management and frontline personnel alike so as to verify currency and
distribution of manpower.
ETOPS qualifications are managed differently from operator to operator and are typically dependent on the
licensing requirements of the country. Line Maintenance personnel typically require the highest level of
ETOPS qualification because they are exposed to every system on the airplane and there is only a small
number available to work the airplane. Hangar personnel may be skilled in certain areas and only require
specific training relative to a system like electrical, engines, structures, etc. This may mean that hangar
personnel do not require the higher level of "ETOPS Qualification".

5.3.14 Procedural Changes

ETOPS Maintenance Programs should be in a continuous improvement state. This includes the training
aspect of the program as well. As operators gain experience and improve their processes and procedures,
they must accordingly revise the supporting documents in coordination with their regulating authority.
Input from all responsible organizations should be involved with the decision to make these revisions. It is
recommended that operators assemble a committee that would include representatives from each area that
participates in the ETOPS operation. This may include, but is not limited to, the following:
1. Maintenance Control
2. Engineering
3. Flight Operations
4. Parts Control
5. Flight Control
6. Technical Publication
7. Reliability Engineering
8. Propulsion Engineering
9. Maintenance ETOPS Focal
10. Flight Operations ETOPS Focal
11. Training
12. Representative of approving authority
13. Any other element from the business that the operator deems necessary
The size of the committee will be proportionate to the size of the operator, but should be involved in the initial
approval of the program and any substantial changes to its content.
If an operator determines that there is a need to make a substantial change to the ETOPS Maintenance
Program, then that change should be submitted to the appropriate regulatory authority for review and
acceptance prior to it being incorporated.

NOTE: The operators and their respective regulatory authorities must determine or define what constitutes a
"substantial change" to the ETOPS Maintenance Program. The agreement should then be documented in
the ETOPS maintenance document.

REV D D621T401 43
 6.0 Part 135 – Operating Requirements for ETOPS CAMP

6.1 General

After August 13, 2008, Part 135 operators flying two-engine airplanes more than 180 minutes flying time from
an alternate airport must implement an ETOPS Maintenance Program as a supplement to their regulatory
approved maintenance program.
ETOPS approval requirements for Part 135 operators are similar to those requirements found in this document
for Part 121 operators. Two-engine airplanes used in a Part 135 environment must be type certificated for
ETOPS operations if manufactured after February 15, 2015 (see Section 1.3). Part 135 operators who elect to
fly two-engine airplanes beyond 180 minutes will need to have operational approval by their respective
regulatory authority (see Section 4.0). Table 5, below, focuses on the key maintenance elements for Part 135
operational approval.
Table 5: Appendix G to Part 135 ETOPS (ETOPS Maintenance Program
for two-engine airplanes
Comments
Appendix G to (Basic ETOPS program for Part 135 operators
Part 135 CAMP for ETOPS Part 135 ETOPS to implement)
1. ETOPS Maintenance Document Part 135.2.8 (a) Same requirement as found in Section 4.3.1 of this
document for Part 121 operators.

2. ETOPS Pre-Departure Service Check Part 135.2.8 (b) Same requirement as found in Section 4.3.2 of this
document for Part 121 operators.

3. Limitations on Dual Maintenance Part 135.2.8 (c) Same requirement as found in Section 4.3.3 of this
document for Part 121 operators.

4. Verification Program Part 135.2.8 (d) Same requirement as found in Section 4.3.4 of this
document for Part 121 operators.

5. Task Identification Part 135.2.8 (e) Same requirement as found in Section 4.3.5 of this
document for Part 121 operators.

6. Centralized Part 135.2.8 (f) Same requirement as found in Section 4.3.6 of this
Maintenance Control Procedures document for Part 121 operators.

7. ETOPS Part Control Program Part 135.2.8 (g) Same requirement as found in Section 4.3.7 of this
document for Part 121 operators.

8. Enhanced Continuing Analysis and Part 135.2.8 (h) This element differs slightly as the 135 operator could
Surveillance System have a CASS in lieu of an event oriented reliability
program. All other requirements as specified in
Section 4.3.8 of this document are still required.

9. Propulsion System Monitoring Part 135.2.8 (i) Same requirement as found in Section 4.3.9 of this
document for Part 121 operators.

10. Engine Condition Monitoring Part 135.2.8 (j) Same requirement as found in Section 4.3.10 of this
document for Part 121 operators.

11. Oil Consumption Monitoring Part 135.2.8 (k) Same requirement as found in Section 4.3.11 of this
document for Part 121 operators.

44 D621T401 REV D
 Comments
Appendix G to (Basic ETOPS program for Part 135 operators
Part 135 CAMP for ETOPS Part 135 ETOPS to implement)
12. APU In-Flight Start Program Part 135.2.8 (l) Same requirement as found in Section 4.3.12 of this
document for Part 121 operators.

13. Maintenance Training Part 135.2.8 (m) Same requirement as found in Section 4.3.13 of this
document for Part 121 operators.

14. CMP Document Part 135.2.8 (n) Operators must ensure configuration standards are
maintained for the subject engine/airplane
combination as stated in the respective
CMP document.

15. Reporting Part 135.2.8 (n) A new element for Part 135 operators where each
operator must report to their CHDO and the
manufacture operating hour and cycles for each
ETOPS airplane. Part 121 operators must do the
same but not as an ETOPS maintenance element
under 14 CFR § 121.374.

REV C D621T401 45
 7.0 Appendix A: ETOPS Maintenance Training Program Outline

The following outline for the ETOPS Maintenance Training Program is provided as a guide for airline training
personnel. It is a listing of the items which should be covered in an ETOPS training program for mechanics/
technicians. It is presented in two sections. Section I is the basic training course topics that all maintenance
personnel should receive prior to working on ETOPS airplanes. Section II defines the ongoing ETOPS training
activities to address any changes to the airline's program, as well as changes in ETOPS regulatory and
configuration requirements. Most airlines provide four to six classroom hours for the initial training (Section I)
and about two to four hours per year for Section II.
ETOPS training can be delivered in lecture format utilizing an instructor, or in a Computer-Based Training
(CBT) format where the student can progress at his/her own pace. CBT gives the operator more flexibility to
have the training done without the restraints of sending an instructor to the students, the CBT can be delivered
on site and remain for any recurrent requirement. The CBT can also be developed with a "test out" option that
would be beneficial for recurrent training for a technician that works in an ETOPS area on a daily basis. A CBT
program developed for operator use by Boeing Engineering can be found at myboeingfleet.com or on the
Extended Operations web site.

7.1 Introduction to ETOPS Maintenance

A. Background and Philosophy of ETOPS

1. The 60-minute rule for two engine airplanes and beyond 180-minute rule for passenger operation for
more than two engine airplanes
a. FAR 121.161
b. 14 CFR § 121.374
c. Local Authority Regulation
2. Need for exception to the rule (general)
a. Expansion of flight operations
b. Desire to use more fuel efficient (two-engine) airplanes
c. ETOPS guidance now Federal Regulation
3. Need for exception to the rule (airline specific)
a. 75, 90, 120, 180 minutes, beyond 180, 240, and beyond 240-minute diversions to an
alternate airport
b. Show route maps and circles.
c. Airline's proposed and/or selected ETOPS routes
B. Maintenance Program Changes/Differences
1. Continuous Airworthiness Maintenance Program – show relationship to ETOPS required programs
a. ETOPS Maintenance Document
b. ETOPS Pre-Departure Service Check (PDSC)
c. Limitations on Dual Maintenance
d. Verification Program
e. Task Identification
f. Centralized Maintenance Control

46 D621T401 REV D
 g. Parts Control Program
h. Reliability Program
i. Propulsion System Monitoring
j. Engine Condition Monitoring
k. Oil Consumption Monitoring
l. APU In-Flight Start Program
m. Configuration, Maintenance, and Procedures (CMP) Requirements
n. Procedural Changes
C. Additionally, the training should cover the following:
1. IFSD Tracking
2. Coordination with Flight Operations
3. Any practical training requirement for technical proficiency
4. Identification of internal ETOPS Committee or ETOPS organizational structure
D. Airline specific ETOPS requirements
1. Any additional program, tasks, procedures forms, etc. used by the airline in the ETOPS
Maintenance Program
2. Requirements to become an "ETOPS Qualified Mechanic" at the airline
3. ETOPS recurrent training at the airline

7.2 Recurrent ETOPS Maintenance Training (Section II)

Recurrent training may be required or desired in order to identify new policies and/or procedures that support
improvements to an established program. Recurrent training may also be required when the operator adds
new airplanes to the program. Most regulatory authorities do not mandate a recurrent training program.
A technician that works in the ETOPS environment on a daily basis may not require recurrent ETOPS training,
but a technician that moves from area to area may require a "refresher" course to cover existing program
guidelines or to ensure that he/she is aware of any new policies and/or procedures added since he/she worked
in the ETOPS area.
Recurrent training could include:
A. New Service Bulletins/Service Letters incorporated for ETOPS
1. Reason for the modification
2. Details of the modification
3. Impact on ETOPS maintenance procedures
a. Changes to existing procedures
b. Additional procedures
B. New or changed tasks or procedures implemented
1. Any new tasks, procedures or paperwork implemented by the airline
2. Changes to any part of the ETOPS maintenance program generated by the airline, the regulatory
authority, manufacturer, etc.

REV C D621T401 47
C. Current status of airline's ETOPS fleet
1. Changes in ETOPS fleet (added, deleted, proposed)
2. Identify airplanes with and without modifications installed (i.e., differences)

7.3 Practical ETOPS Training

A. On-the-job training (OJT) for PDSC

B. OJT for data collection and paperwork
C. Practical exercises on obtaining ETOPS parts

48 D621T401 REV C
 8.0 ETOPS Document Template

8.1 Purpose of the ETOPS Document

The purpose of the ETOPS Document (herein referred to as the Document) is to identify the enhancements to
the "Approved" or CAMP procedures required for ETOPS. This Document can be a separate document, such
as this sample one, or it can be a chapter in the airline's General Maintenance Manual (Policies and
Procedures Manual) or other maintenance program documents. In either case, the information in this
Document can be complete (i.e., standalone) or it may reference other documentation as necessary in order to
avoid duplication. Consideration for easy access to the information is important when determining how much
data to link to the document. The primary purpose of the Document is to identify and describe all elements of
the ETOPS Maintenance Program in sufficient detail to ensure that the reader understands the purpose and
extent of the airline's ETOPS Maintenance Program.

8.2 Purpose of the ETOPS Document Template

The purpose of this ETOPS Document Template (herein referred to as the Template) is to assist the ETOPS
operator in developing an ETOPS Maintenance Program and the ETOPS Document required by 14 CFR
§ 121.374 and Advisory Circular (AC) 120-42B to identify the elements of that program. The Template
contains partial descriptions of all the elements required to establish a workable ETOPS Maintenance
Program. Each aspect of the program is identified in an opening paragraph followed by typical methods for
carrying out that program. The Template sections can be used "as-is" to describe an operator's program, or
they can be modified as the operator chooses to accurately describe its own processes and procedures.
Consideration for airline capability and practical application is important when determining what elements of
the template to write into the program.

8.3 Regulatory Compliance

The Template is written to comply with the requirements set forth in 14 CFR § 121.374 and AMC 20-6 Rev 2.
These are considered by many countries as the baseline standard for ETOPS regulation in the industry. The
Template is Boeing's suggestion of how an airline might comply with those requirements. The final decision as
to how an airline's ETOPS program will be conducted, however, lies with the airline and its own regulatory
authority.

8.4 Using the ETOPS Manual Template

Certain items in the Template are written in generic terms in order to make the document compatible with many
different airlines. Also, certain items are stated in general terms to allow the operator to expand on the
descriptions as necessary. The following list of items will help you tailor this Template to your own needs.
1. The Template is written with a generic airline name, "XYZ Airlines" and the generic three-letter code,
"XYZ." These should be replaced with the airline's name, three-letter code or other identifier as the
operator chooses.
a. The Cover page, as well as the headers and footers should be changed to suit the airline’s
publication standards. Document layout and type fonts can also be changed by the airline
as desired.
b. The Table of Contents was generated in Word for Windows. If changes are made to the document,
this Table of Contents must be redone to agree with the final version of the Manual, including titles,
section numbers and page numbers. (See your Word documentation for the procedure.)

REV D D621T401 49
 c. Generic names and numbers are used in the Template to identify various documents and
procedures; e.g., "XYZ-ET-CMP" or XYZ Procedure XXX (where "XXX" refers to a number). These
should be replaced with the airline's applicable document and procedure names and numbers.
d. Notes in the Template that are printed in italics indicate text that the airline needs to add or edit
according to their actual operations, requirements and procedures. The notes in italics should then
be deleted.
e. The document Template addresses the ETOPS program outlined in the 14 CFR § 121.374 and
AMC 20-6 Rev 2. If the airline's regulatory authority has different requirements, these differences
should be included in the document in place of the material in the Template.
f. References to Engineering Orders (EOs), Maintenance Releases (MRs) numbers or other similar
items should be replaced with the name, title, number, etc. of the airline's applicable paperwork.
2. Many paragraphs in the Template are examples of how procedures, policies or activities might be
conducted. The airline should choose those appropriate to its own operation and edit the text
as necessary.
a. Lists, such as MELs, PDSC tasks, or FAK contents, may be included in the Manual (in the main text
or as appendices) if the operator chooses. If not included, reference should be made as to the
location of such data by the operator's document name and number.
b. Names of organizations or functions as well as titles of individuals should be changed to the
airline's terminology.
c. Replace "Regulatory Authority" with the actual name, acronym or other appropriate reference.
• Date and number formats should be changed to the airline's conventions.

8.5 Availability of Document on myboeingfleet.com

The Boeing Company’s Maintenance Programs and Engineering Group has provided this template in Microsoft
Word 97-2003 format. It is available at myboeingfleet.com or the “Extended Operations” web site. See your
Boeing Field Service Representative for details.
The template is attached in PDF format for your evaluation.

50 D621T401 REV C
 XYZ Airlines

Extended Operations
(ETOPS)
Document
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
 XYZ Airlines, Inc.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Regulatory Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.3 Responsible Individuals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2.0 ETOPS APPROVED AIRPLANES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.1 Identification of ETOPS Airplanes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.2 Type Certificate Data Sheet. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3.0 CONFIGURATION CONTROL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1 Engine and Airframe Modification Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2 ETOPS Parts Control Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.0. DISPATCH CONFIGURATION AND MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1 Minimum Equipment List and Dispatch Deviation Guide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.0 ETOPS PRE-DEPARTURE SERVICE CHECK (PDSC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1 General ETOPS PDSC Requirements/Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.2 Definition of the ETOPS PDSC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.3 Additional ETOPS Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.4 ETOPS PDSC Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.0 ETOPS SIGNIFICANT SYSTEMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.0 ETOPS RELIABILITY PROGRAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.1 Reporting Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.2 ETOPS Reliability Event Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.3 Analysis and Corrective Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.4 Identification of ETOPS Tasks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.5 APU Start Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.0 PROPULSION SYSTEM MONITORING PROGRAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9.0 OIL CONSUMPTION MONITORING PROGRAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9.1 Oil Consumption Program Procedures/Data Collection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9.2 Oil Consumption Program Dispatch/Corrective Action Policies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
10.0 ENGINE CONDITION MONITORING PROGRAM (ECMP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
10.1 ECMP Procedures/Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
10.2 ECMP – Corrective Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
11.0 ETOPS MAINTENANCE OPERATING RESTRICTIONS POLICY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
11.1 Dual Maintenance (Identical Maintenance on Similar Systems) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

REV D i
 XYZ Airlines, Inc.

11.2 Interchangeability of Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

12.0 RESOLUTION OF AIRPLANE DISCREPANCIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
12.1 Verification of Maintenance Action Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
12.2 Determination of the Need for In-flight Verification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
12.3 Verification Flight Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
12.4 Verification Flight Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
13.0 ETOPS MAINTENANCE TRAINING PROGRAM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
13.1 ETOPS Qualified Maintenance Personnel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
13.2 ETOPS Familiarity Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
13.3 ETOPS Training Responsibilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
13.4 ETOPS Qualified Personnel - Task Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

ii REV D
 XYZ Airlines, Inc.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose
The purpose of this Extended Range Operations (ETOPS) Document is to identify the supplementary
maintenance program requirements and organizational responsibilities for ETOPS at XYZ Airlines. It defines
the general maintenance practices and procedures for ETOPS. This document explains the ETOPS
maintenance program in detail but may reference other XYZ documents.

NOTE: The ETOPS Maintenance Program can be documented in a document similar to this one as a stand
alone document or as a section in the General Maintenance Manual. This document can identify
the ETOPS program in complete detail or by references to procedures/responsibilities documented
in other airline material. Paragraph 1.1 should be written to comply with the document as written
by the airline.

1.2 Regulatory Compliance

14 CFR § 121.374/AMC 20-6 Rev 2 identify the requirements for "the utilization of airplanes in Extended
Operations". This ETOPS Document complies with the above regulations and apply to all ETOPS certified and
operationally approved airplanes at XYZ.

NOTE: As required, add statements relative to compliance with your own regulatory authority.

1.3 Responsible Individuals

The Manager of Engineering is responsible for the development of this Document. Quality Assurance is
responsible for obtaining approval from the applicable Regulatory Authority. Responsibility for the
implementation of the requirements identified in the Manual lies with the Vice President of Maintenance and
Engineering with the assistance of the Director of Quality Assurance and Control for the monitoring and control
of ongoing implementation. Technical Publications is responsible for document revision control and document
distribution.
The Centralized Maintenance Control Center (CMCC) is responsible for the day-to-day management and
coordination of ETOPS decisions.

NOTE: This is not a requirement in AMC 20-6 Rev 2.

REV D ETOPS Manual Page 1

 XYZ Airlines, Inc.
2.0 ETOPS APPROVED AIRPLANES

2.1 Identification of ETOPS Airplanes

XYZ Airlines airplane/engine combinations which are authorized for ETOPS are listed in Table 1.

Table 1 – ETOPS Airplanes in XYZ Fleet

Airframe Engine Type Approval Date Approved Time Registry

767-300ER PW4060 mm/dd/yy 180 Minutes XXXXX
767-300ER CF6-80 mm/dd/yy 180 Minutes XXXXX
777-200LR GE90 mm/dd/yy 180 Minutes XXXXX

Each ETOPS approved airplane will be marked with the word "ETOPS" in three-inch high (minimum) black
letters at a location four inches above the ground power receptacle to ensure positive identification to
line personnel.

NOTE: This is not necessary if all airplanes of the same type in a fleet are ETOPS airplanes.

2.2 Type Certificate Data Sheet

The Type Certificate Data Sheet (see Section 3.1 of the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM)), contains the ETOPS
type design approval as does the Configuration, Maintenance, and Procedures (CMP) document. Any
airplanes added to the ETOPS fleet must comply with the current revision of the CMP Document applicable to
that airplane/engine combination.

Page 2 ETOPS Manual REV D

 XYZ Airlines, Inc.
3.0 CONFIGURATION CONTROL

The airplanes listed in Table 1 have approval for ETOPS operations and comply with the ETOPS configuration
standards identified in Boeing's CMP Document, DXXXXXXX. The policies and procedures listed below,
governing modifications and ETOPS Parts Control ensure that the airplanes will continue to comply with the
applicable ETOPS configuration requirements.

3.1 Engine and Airframe Modification Procedures

The AFM for the airplanes listed in Table 1 states that those airframe/engine combinations can be used for
ETOPS when configured in accordance with the applicable revision of the CMP Document. The following
paragraphs define how Service Bulletins (SBs) and Airworthiness Directives (ADs) will be incorporated.

3.1.1 Incorporation of ETOPS SBs

SBs identified in the current revision of the CMP Document are required for ETOPS operation and must be
incorporated in accordance with the schedule given either in the AD, CMP or the SB. Engineering is
responsible for determining these ETOPS requirements and preparing appropriate Engineering Orders.
Production, Planning and Control (PP&C) is responsible for scheduling the affected airplanes for modification.

3.1.2 Schedule of SB Incorporation

All SBs and SLs required for XYZ Airlines ETOPS airplanes, as indicated by the applicable CMP Document,
are listed in XYZ Airlines' CMP Document XYZ-ET- CMP. This is a living document that lists each required SB,
the airplanes to which they apply, and a log of completion dates by tail number. The percentage completed for
the fleet will be listed for each modification.

NOTE: This should be included for airplanes which require extensive modification to bring them up to
ETOPS configuration or for large fleets requiring multiple modifications. Other airlines may not
need this feature.

The XYZ-ET-CMP Document will be updated each time a SB is completed on an airplane and will be signed off
by Engineering. The document will be revised each time Boeing's CMP Document is revised in order to identify
new or changed modification/configuration requirements. This revision will be done by Engineering.

3.1.3 Incorporation of ADs

In cases where the SB is mandated by an AD, the incorporation dates in the AD may differ from that in the SB
or CMP. In these cases, the earliest time schedule will be used for incorporation whenever possible. Any
deviation will be negotiated with the Regulatory Authority. Scheduling and tracking of AD incorporation will be
the same as for SB incorporation above except that engineering evaluation is not required for ADs.
It is important to note that each ETOPS airplane is required to be compliant to the CMP revision level at time of
delivery. This revision level is the minimum standard for each airplane. XYZ airline will review all new CMP
revisions for applicability.

REV D ETOPS Manual Page 3

 XYZ Airlines, Inc.
3.2 ETOPS Parts Control Program

ETOPS airplanes have components which in most cases are an improved version than those used on non-
ETOPS airplanes. The ETOPS Parts Control Program is necessary to ensure that the airplane approved for
this operation is maintained in an ETOPS configuration. The CMP Document determines the configuration of
ETOPS airplanes and, through the SBs, identifies any special required parts. Parts that are not approved or
are temporarily approved until such SB is incorporated are identified in the Not Approved or Restricted ETOPS
Parts List in the associated ETOPS Guide Volume I. This list drives ETOPS notes in the applicable Illustrated
Parts Catalog (IPC). All part in the IPC are approved for ETOPS unless otherwise noted.

3.2.1 Purpose of Parts Control Program

The XYZ ETOPS Parts Control Program is implemented to ensure that all ETOPS airplanes in the XYZ fleet
are kept in the ETOPS configuration as defined by the applicable revision of the CMP document. The program
includes parts control at the home base and out stations as well as borrowed and pooled parts.

3.2.2 Updating the XYZ ETOPS Parts List

The XYZ Airlines ETOPS Parts List lists all of the parts that are required for ETOPS. This list will be updated by
the Material Management Group each time the CMP Document is revised. Line maintenance personnel may
use the IPC for parts verification. Since the IPC is not revised by the manufacturer at the same time as the
CMP, the XYZ copy of the IPC may not be correct. To account for this, XYZ Material Management will make
changes to work copies of the IPC whenever CMP changes occur.

3.2.3 Parts Borrowing and Pooling

Procedures for borrowing parts are contained in XYZ Procedure XXX. All ETOPS parts will be verified by part
number and dash number as acceptable per the XYZ Airlines ETOPS Parts List prior to installation on an
ETOPS airplane. If any borrowed parts are not verified per the XYZ Airline's ETOPS Parts List, they cannot be
used on an ETOPS airplane without engineering authorization.
XYZ Airlines is authorized to pool parts with certain FAA approved foreign carriers per XYZ Procedure XXX as
specified in the XYZ Operations Specifications, Part XX. The configuration of these parts is agreed to by pool
participants and any changes must be disclosed to member airlines. Any parts received through pooling
agreements must still be confirmed by part and dash numbers. Parts borrowed from these approved foreign
sources must have a Serviceable Tag from the other airline attached as specified by XYZ Procedure XXX.
Parts borrowed from non-air carriers must have the appropriate documentation attached certifying compliance
with FARs.
Leasing of engines will be covered by individual Engine Technical Services approval of each engine covered
by a lease agreement (which details the individual configuration of the leased engine).

3.2.4 ETOPS Fly-Away Kit (Airline Option)

XYZ Airlines has assembled a Fly-away Kit (FAK). The FAK contains spare parts that might be needed to make
repairs when airplanes land at line stations where parts are unavailable or difficult to obtain. The FAK includes
applicable ETOPS and non-ETOPS parts, and such items as tires and a supply of engine/APU oil. The
contents of the FAK will be based on actual usage. Material Management will monitor parts usage over a six
month period and consider the availability of ETOPS parts at line and remote stations to determine what parts
and what quantities should be carried in the FAK.

NOTE: It is recommended to insert the FAK parts list at this point.

Page 4 ETOPS Manual REV D

 XYZ Airlines, Inc.
4.0. DISPATCH CONFIGURATION AND MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS

4.1 Minimum Equipment List and Dispatch Deviation Guide

The XYZ Airlines Minimum Equipment List (MEL) has been developed from the FAA/EASA (select appropriate
document) Master Minimum Equipment List (MMEL). Certain items in this MMEL have different dispatch
requirements for ETOPS flights than for non-ETOPS flights. These differences have been noted in the XYZ
MEL with the acronym "ER" in bold faced type next to each applicable item, or by diversion time applicability
depending on the model.
Some items in the MMEL which are not identified as being ETOPS related, are shown in the XYZ MEL as
ETOPS, due to the specific operations conducted by XYZ. This constitutes an MEL that is more restrictive than
the FAA MMEL. The XYZ MEL document will be used as the dispatch authority for all XYZ ETOPS flights. The
Dispatch Deviation Guide (DDG) will be used as supplementary material to assist in the development of the
XYZ MEL.

NOTE: This paragraph is airline specific. Include it, re-write it or delete it as applicable.

REV D ETOPS Manual Page 5

 XYZ Airlines, Inc.
5.0 ETOPS PRE-DEPARTURE SERVICE CHECK (PDSC)

5.1 General ETOPS PDSC Requirements/Responsibilities

Prior to departure of an airplane on an ETOPS flight, an ETOPS PDSC is required. The Manager of the
Maintenance Control Center (or other responsible organization) has the responsibility to control the contents of
the PDSC. Primary responsibility for PDSC procedures and conduct, lies with the this organization and should
be in coordination with Line Maintenance supervisors. The PDSC must be performed by an ETOPS qualified
mechanic as defined in the XYZ approved ETOPS Maintenance Document (see Section 13 for Training
Requirements and Records).

5.2 Definition of the ETOPS PDSC

The PDSC elements shown in Table 2 are from the recommended 777 PDSC ETOPS Guide, Volume I.

NOTE: The airline may insert the PDSC Task Card(s) here, reference the task card by number or list the
PDSC tasks in a form similar to Table 2. The Boeing 777 PDSC is used as an example in Table 2.

Table 2 – ETOPS PRE-DEPARTURE SERVICE CHECK (SAMPLE ONLY)

A/C
Number Flight Hours Flght Number Stations Date
Item 777 Maintenance Task Signature
Check is to be completed within 2 - 4 hours of ETOPS departure unless a higher level check

1
has been completed. LY
Review aircraft logbook for reported discrepancies and oil consumption from previous flights.
Correct as necessary.
N
2 Verify status level messages and higher are resolved or approved dispatch paperwork is
applied. ETOPS Qualification Required
O

3 General Visual Inspection (GVI) of the fuselage access/service panels, hatches, navigation/
communication antennas and radome from ground level, for obvious damage and security.
4 GVI of the nose and main landing gear tires, wheels and brakes for obvious damage and
E

wear.
5 GVI of the static ports, Total Air Temperature (TAT) probe, pitot probes, Ice Detectors
PL

(if installed), and angle-of attack (AOA) sensors for obvious damage.
6 GVI of the left and right wing leading edge and associated devices, trailing edge and
associated devices, wing lower surface, wing tip area, and wing to fuselage section for
general condition.
M

7 GVI of the fuselage and APU in areas of drain masts and drains for fluid leakage.
SA

8 GVI of all air inlet/exhaust doors and cabin pressure outflow valve to ensure there are no
obstructions.
9 GVI of the vertical stabilizer, rudder, horizontal stabilizers, and elevators for obvious damage.
10 GVI of the left engine thrust reverser, exhaust area, strut, and visible turbine blades for
obvious damage and evidence of metal/oil accumulation.
11 GVI of the left engine cowling, inlet cowl, nosedome and visible fan blades for obvious
damage. GVI of access panels and blowout doors for condition and security. Also GVI for
open latches and signs of fluid leakage.

Page 6 ETOPS Manual REV D

 XYZ Airlines, Inc.
A/C
Number Flight Hours Flght Number Stations Date
Item 777 Maintenance Task Signature
12 Verify the left engine oil level and service as necessary.
ETOPS Qualification Required
Indicate amount added: _______
13 GVI of the right engine thrust reverser, exhaust area, strut, and visible turbine blades for

LY
obvious damage and evidence of metal/oil accumulation.
14 GVI of the right engine cowling, inlet cowl, nosedome and visible fan blades for obvious
damage. GVI of access panels and blowout doors for condition and security. Also GVI for

N
open latches and signs of fluid leakage.
15 Verify the right engine oil level and service as necessary.

O
ETOPS Qualification Required
Indicate amount added: _______
16 Verify the APU oil level and service as necessary. It is acceptable to use flight deck
indications for this task.
ETOPS Qualification Required
E
PL
Indicate amount added: _______
Final Check Sign-Off
M

All ETOPS Checks performed by ETOPS qualified mechanic.

Engine and APU oil consumption rate checked and acceptable to MCC.
SA

NOTE: Unless otherwise specified, all General Visual Inspections are to be performed from ground level.

NOTE: XYZ's PDSC may contain additional elements as identified by Engineering or as required by the
applicable Regulatory Authority. To ensure an accurate oil consumption analysis during non-
ETOPS flights, operators should consider any serving completed during this operation (including
zero) to calculate the new rate prior to ETOPS operation. If the airline's PDSC contains additional
elements, these elements may not need to be conducted prior to non-ETOPS flights as discussed
below. In the following discussion, the PDSC referred to is the airline’s approved PDSC.

REV D ETOPS Manual Page 7

 XYZ Airlines, Inc.
5.3 Additional ETOPS Requirements

ETOPS airplanes require that the cargo compartment fire suppression capacity be suitable for the duration of
the approved diversion time plus 15 minutes. XYZ has approval for XXX minutes diversion time; therefore,
cargo fire suppression capacity is adequate for XXX + 15 minutes.
Damage to cargo compartment liners and door seals could cause a loss of halon concentration and reduce fire
suppression capability. Therefore, XYZ will check cargo compartment liners for tears and punctures as directed
by their approved maintenance program. (define here). As in the case of the cargo liners, cargo door seals will
be inspected for damage as directed by their approved maintenance program. (define here).

NOTE: There is no requirement to inspect the cargo liners and doors seals during an ETOPS PDSC. This
same situation would be equally harmful for a non ETOPS operation utilizing a 60 minute system.
Boeing recommends that operators monitor events associated with this condition and make
appropriate revisions to their approved maintenance program. Additional awareness training
around aircraft loading procedures and the hazards impact on blocking a fire suppression nozzle
is another way to manage the situation.

5.4 ETOPS PDSC Policy

5.4.1 ETOPS and Non-ETOPS Flights

For all ETOPS flights, the PDSC must be conducted prior to departure by an ETOPS qualified mechanic (see
Section 13 on Training Requirements). On non- ETOPS flights utilizing ETOPS airplanes, the PDSC is not
required. However, the engine condition monitoring + APU and Engine oil consumption monitoring programs
are still required. [It is at the discretion of the operator as to the requirement of a qualified ETOPS technician
for the servicing task on the non-ETOPS leg.] Before the airplane leaves on an ETOPS flight, oil consumption
will be verified by a qualified ETOPS technician.

5.4.2 Diversions for Non-Maintenance Reasons

If a diversion occurs due to reasons that are not ETOPS Significant System related (e.g., an ill passenger), the
decision to require an ETOPS PDSC is that of the operator and approved by their local authority. Under these
conditions, ETOPS regulation does not require that a PDSC be accomplished in order to continue the flight on
an ETOPS route. If, after landing, there are any open log items that are sensitive to ETOPS, the MCC must be
notified for disposition prior to dispatch.

5.4.3 Diversions for Maintenance Reasons

If a diversion occurs due to reasons that are ETOPS significant system related, an ETOPS PDSC, performed
by an ETOPS qualified mechanic, is required prior to dispatch if the flight is to continue on an ETOPS route.
The local maintenance provider may start some maintenance items under the direction of the MCC, but an
ETOPS qualified mechanic must oversee, perform, or verify the maintenance performed.
If the next leg of the flight can be flown non-ETOPS, an ETOPS qualified mechanic is not required and a
PDSC is not required provided that the following conditions are met:

1. The airplane complies with the MEL requirements for non-ETOPS operations.

2. Non-routine maintenance performed by the contract maintenance provider has been directed by the
centralized maintenance control center or approved entity within the airline.
3. All maintenance and servicing has been accomplished to the satisfaction of the centralized maintenance
control center or approved entity.

Page 8 ETOPS Manual REV D

 XYZ Airlines, Inc.

4. The centralized maintenance control center, the flight crew, Operations Control and Dispatch have been
notified and agree to operate the airplane on a non-ETOPS route under non-ETOPS requirements.
5. Maintenance Control has entered a Deferred Maintenance Item (DMI) form for a down line station to
check that all maintenance performed by the diversion site contract maintenance provider conforms to the
ETOPS configuration requirements. The down line station check must be made by an ETOPS qualified
mechanic and must be made prior to any subsequent ETOPS operation.

REV D ETOPS Manual Page 9

 XYZ Airlines, Inc.
6.0 ETOPS SIGNIFICANT SYSTEMS

ETOPS Significant Systems are identified in Table 3 to support monitoring, reporting, and corrective action
requirements contained in this manual. All malfunctions or degradations in any of these systems are subject to
the problem investigation, corrective action and follow-up procedures of the ETOPS Event- oriented Reliability
Program and the verification of maintenance action requirements of FAR 121.374.
Table 3 – ETOPS Significant Systems (SAMPLE ONLY)
(Boeing 777 ETOPS Significant Systems List used as an example. Please reference the associated ETOPS Guide
Volume I, Appendix B for the latest revision of these systems)

ATA M/M Criteria Criteria

ATA Chapter 777 ETOPS Significant Systems Subsection Group 1 Group 2
21 Cabin Pressure Control System -31 X

LY
Air Conditioning Pack Flow Control -51 X
Pack Cooling and Mix Manifold Temperature Control -52 X
Zone Temperature Control and Indication -61 X

N
22 Autopilot Flight Director System -11 X
Autoflight Thrust Management Computing System -31 X
23 High Frequency Communication System (HF)
Communications SATCOM* O -11
-15
X
X
E
24 Generator Drive System -11 X
Electrical Power Power and Regulation -21 X
PL

AC Generation and Bus Control -22 X

Backup Electrical Power -25 X
Transformer Rectifier Units (TRU) -32 X
M

26 Engine Fire Detection -11

Fire Protection APU Fire Detection -15
SA

Lower Cargo Compartment and E/E Smoke Detection -16

Lower Cargo Compartment Fire Extinguishing -23
28 Engine Fuel Feed System -22 X
Fuel APU Fuel Feed System -25 X
Fuel Quantity Indicating System* -41 X
30 Wing Anti Ice -11 X
Ice and Rain Engine Anti Ice -21 X
Protection
Pitot, Angle of Attack, Total Air Temperature Probe Heat -31 X
Engine Probe Heat -34 X
Flight Compartment Window Anti Ice -41 X
34 Weather Radar -43 X
Navigation Flight Management Computing System -61 X
36 Engine Air Supply -11 X
Pneumatic Air Supply Distribution -12 X

Page 10 ETOPS Manual REV D

 XYZ Airlines, Inc.
ATA M/M Criteria Criteria
ATA Chapter 777 ETOPS Significant Systems Subsection Group 1 Group 2
49 Auxiliary Power Unit -11 X
Airborne Auxiliary APU Mounts -13 X
Power
APU Harness -14 X
APU Inlet Door -15 X
APU Drains and Vents -16 X
APU Oil Filter Elements -27 X
APU Oil Heater Assembly -28 X
APU Fuel System -31 X
APU Ignition -41 X
APU Starting -42 X

LY
APU Air Turbine Starter -43 X
APU Inlet Guide Vanes -52 X
APU Surge Control Valve -53 X
APU Control System -61 X

N
APU Exhaust Gas Temperature -71 X

71 Powerplant
O
APU Oil Quantity Temperature and Sight Gage
All Models
-94

ALL
X

X
E
72 Engine ALL X
PL

73 Engine Fuel and Control ALL X

74 Ignition ALL X
75 Air ALL X
M

76 Engine Controls ALL X

77 Engine Indicating ALL X
SA

79 Oil ALL X
80 Starting ALL X
* Must be operational for 207-minute ETOPS diversion times (no MMEL relief).

NOTE: XYZ Airlines can choose to use this list of ETOPS Significant Systems or establish its own list of
ETOPS Significant Systems and get approval from the applicable regulatory authority.

REV D ETOPS Manual Page 11

 XYZ Airlines, Inc.
7.0 ETOPS RELIABILITY PROGRAM

XYZ Airlines ETOPS Reliability Program is an event oriented, reliability program (i.e., each applicable event is
reported and investigated) that focuses on ETOPS Significant Systems. The ETOPS Reliability Program is in
addition to the Reliability Program (event or statistically oriented) currently in place for all XYZ airplanes.

7.1 Reporting Requirements

The CMCC will notify the regulatory authority and the Reliability organization within 96 hours of any event
reportable under the XYZ Airlines ETOPS Reliability program. Reporting requirements apply to the entire fleet
of airframe/engine combinations of the types utilized in ETOPS, including events occurring on non-ETOPS
flights. In addition to events normally reported to the regulatory authority as required by Sections 21.3 and
121.703 of the Federal Aviation Regulations, the following events will also be included:

1. In-flight Shutdowns (IFSDs);

2. Diversions or air turnbacks;

3. Uncommanded power changes or surges;
4. Inability to control the engine or obtain desired power;
5. Problems with ETOPS Significant Systems (ETOPS Significant System failures);
6. Any other event detrimental to ETOPS.

ETOPS flight diversions or air turnbacks for any cause will be reported immediately to the regulatory authority
by the CMCC.
All ETOPS problem reports will identify the following:

a. Airplane Identification (Type and Registration Number);

b. Engine Identification (Make and Serial Number);

c. For engines, total time, cycles, and time since last shop visit;
d. Cause of the problems;
e. Phase of flight (i.e., Takeoff, Climb, Cruise, Descent, Approach, Landing);
f. Corrective action;
g. For systems, time since overhaul or last inspection of the discrepant unit.

In addition to the above reports, Reliability will produce a monthly summary report. Reports will cover each
fleet of airframe/engine combinations of the types utilized in ETOPS operations. Monthly reports will include a
monthly count of events in each reportable category (previously listed in Items 1 through 6). The status of
active investigations and corrective actions taken will be noted.

Page 12 ETOPS Manual REV D

 XYZ Airlines, Inc.
7.2 ETOPS Reliability Event Log

Each event in Section 7.1 will be logged on the ETOPS Event Oriented Reliability Program Log Sheet in order
to track any trends in failures, removals, PIREPS, etc. This log will note the following:

1. Date of event;

2. Flight Number;
3. Aircraft Tail Number;
4. ATA Chapter Number;
5. Brief description of the problem;
6. Brief explanation of corrective action; and
7. Date corrective action was completed.

Reliability will review this log periodically in order to note any trends which may develop or to identify other
problems such as repeat discrepancies, chronic faults or chronic airplanes.

7.3 Analysis and Corrective Action

For an IFSD relating to an engine component that is line replaceable, the troubleshooting and corrective action
will be carried out by maintenance personnel and the aircraft will be returned to service.
For an IFSD relating to an internal engine problem or one that has sustained internal damage to the engine, an
analysis of each event will be conducted by Engineering to determine the cause of the problem. Engineering
will determine any corrective action required and issue an Engineering Order (EO) to have the necessary work
performed. The EO will also identify any parts required for the work and the Material Control Section will be
responsible for having these parts on hand. Maintenance will carry out the corrective action in accordance with
the EO. Following completion of the work, Reliability will continue to monitor the item to ensure that corrective
action was effective. Further analysis and corrective action will be employed if required.

7.4 Identification of ETOPS Tasks

Time limits/check intervals for maintenance tasks are reflected in the Scheduled Maintenance and Inspection
Program. Tasks listed in this program determine the content and frequency of scheduled maintenance tasks.
Tasks which have been determined to be necessary for the continued reliability of ETOPS significant systems
or components are identified in the task listing by the word "ETOPS." "ETOPS" also appears on the task cards
associated with the ETOPS tasks to assure awareness by line station personnel. As subsequent extended-
range requirements are prescribed by the manufacturer or regulatory authority, or result from equipment
additions or modifications, they will be similarly identified.
Unscheduled maintenance tasks in the line maintenance environment that are driven by logbook entry will not
be identified by "ETOPS" so the technician will refer to these tasks relative to the approved ETOPS Significant
Systems List. The ETOPS training identified in Section 13 of this document provides instructions for the
technician to recognize an ETOPS significant task. [XYZ airline should identify here how they manage this
process, whether they use a list of tasks from the logbook or just the list of ETOPS Significant Systems].

REV D ETOPS Manual Page 13

 XYZ Airlines, Inc.
7.5 APU Start Program

The APU In-Flight Start Monitoring Program for XYZ Airlines is in accordance with the FAR 121.374 and
AMC 20-6 Rev 2, which stipulates that the APU start and run reliability be monitored and verified in order to
ensure adequate reliability for ETOPS. In order to demonstrate the reliability of the APU in XYZ's aircraft, the
following program has been implemented. Once the fleet in-flight start baseline average is above 95%, it is the
industry standard to move toward a 120 day interval per airplane.]
APU in-flight starts shall be attempted at random on the following flights:

1. Non-ETOPS flights greater than four hours in length with the APU in ETOPS configuration per the current
CMP document.

2. The return (to home station) portion of ETOPS flights greater than four hours.

The flight crew will do the following:

1. Attempt to start the APU sometime during the one-hour period prior to top of decent, or at such time to
ensure a greater than two-hour cold soak condition at altitude.

2. Multiple start attempts (typically three) may be performed within the limits stated in the AFM and the
Airplane Maintenance Manual, Chapter 49. Descending to a lower altitude, but within the track
constraints, to achieve a successful in-flight start is acceptable and can be documented as a successful
in-flight start.

The flight crew will make an entry in the Aircraft Flight Log for each flight during which an APU in-flight start is
attempted. The entry will include the following information:

1. Departure and arrival stations;

2. Altitude of each start attempt;

3. Statement that attempt was or was not successful;
4. Outside air temperature (OAT);
5. Indicate if APU was shut down after reaching 95%;
6. Indicate if APU failed to start on ground.

The Reliability Department will review each in-flight start logbook entry and complete an APU In-flight Start
Report. For failed attempts, a positive correction is required prior to an ETOPS flight. Failed sampling starts
are not required to be reported but if the APU fails to start when directed by the Quick Reference Handbook
(QRH) then that is a reportable event.

Page 14 ETOPS Manual REV D

 XYZ Airlines, Inc.
8.0 PROPULSION SYSTEM MONITORING PROGRAM

The Reliability Department is responsible for monitoring all IFSD events and calculating the IFSD rate. The
IFSD rate is to be computed on an overall basis as well as a 12 month rolling average. IFSD rate per 1000
engine hours is to be calculated for the entire fleet of each airframe/engine combination involved in ETOPS
operations. Reliability will include the rate data in the monthly Reliability Report. Investigations of
exceedances and unsatisfactory trends will be completed with assistance from Powerplant Engineering.
If the IFSD rate for two engine aircraft exceeds the alert level of 0.05/1000 engine hours for 120-minute
operations, or 0.03/1000 engine hours for 180-minute operations, or 0.02/1000 engine hours for greater than
180/207 minute operations (for operators working under AMC 20-6 Rev 2 requirements, use the table found in
the propulsion system monitoring section, 5.3.9), a fact finding evaluation is to be initiated and a recovery plan
developed as follows:

1. IFSD events during the applicable 12 month period will be audited, verifying cause, and validity of
corrective action.

2. IFSD events and rates on related engines on other airplane types will be reviewed and relevant events
and rates will be included in the reliability analysis and recovery plan.
3. Engine and airframe manufacturers will be contacted to evaluate the 12 month analysis and participate in
the development of a recovery plan.
4. Within 30 days of the initial regulatory authority notification recovery plan (with supporting analysis data as
necessary) will be reported to the regulatory authority.
5. The recovery plan will be implemented.

NOTE: Since (if) XYZ Airlines has a small fleet, one in-flight shutdown can cause the IFSD rate to exceed
the alert levels stated above. This is not justification for revocation of ETOPS authorization nor for
a decrease in approved diversion time. However, investigation of the cause of the IFSD,
rectification of the problem and reporting procedures stated above will still be carried out for every
IFSD regardless of the rate (see AC 120-42B for guidance).

REV D ETOPS Manual Page 15

 XYZ Airlines, Inc.
9.0 OIL CONSUMPTION MONITORING PROGRAM

For ETOPS airplanes, engine and APU oil consumption will be monitored on a flight- by-flight basis to identify
exceedances of alert limits or the development of significant upward trends in consumption. Airplanes
exhibiting questionable characteristics will be restricted from ETOPS until the fault has been corrected.
Data collection will begin two months prior to the start of ETOPS and continue for all flights (ETOPS and non-
ETOPS). The purpose of this action is to establish a baseline consumption level for each engine and APU.
Further data collection will allow Engineering to determine deviations from this baseline and investigate
possible problems before a malfunction or degradation occurs.

9.1 Oil Consumption Program Procedures/Data Collection

Engine and APU oil quantity must be verified and serviced as necessary prior to dispatch on an ETOPS flight.
Engine and APU oil consumption must be verified below the manufacturer guidelines prior to an ETOPS flight.
Dispatch oil quantity and consumption rate must support the approved diversion time for the ETOPS flight.
(define process here)
Line Maintenance mechanics will check engine and APU oil within five to 30 minutes of engine shutdown after
each flight segment (or as recommended by the engine/APU manufacturer). The information will be entered
into the applicable Logbook /Oil Consumption Monitoring Forms by the technician or the CMCC. There is one
form for each engine and each APU, including spares. Mechanics at line stations will transfer the data to the
CMCC using the best available method (computer, telephone, fax, telex, etc.). When necessary, the flight crew
is responsible for notifying the MCC of oil quantity readings and the APU hour meter reading.
The CMCC will calculate the oil consumption rates for the previous flight leg and determine if the rates are
acceptable. If the rate is not acceptable for any engine or APU, the problem will be investigated by Engineering
in order to determine the cause of the problem. Corrective action will be implemented by Maintenance before
the airplane is dispatched for ETOPS.
If the oil consumption rates are acceptable, or when a detected problem has been corrected, the airplane can
be released for ETOPS, providing other restraints have been cleared. The CMCC will log the oil rates on the
Trend Analysis Charts for each engine and APU. Oil consumption rates will be monitored over the long term to
determine if any problems might be developing. Analysis and corrective action will be as stated above.

9.2 Oil Consumption Program Dispatch/Corrective Action Policies

Oil consumption must be determined for the previous flight, prior to dispatch of the airplane for ETOPS.
Airplanes exhibiting questionable characteristics will be restricted from ETOPS until the fault has
been corrected.

NOTE: If the CMCC or Engineering can positively determine that apparent exceedance is due to a one-
time, identifiable anomaly, or to calculation tolerances resulting from short flight segments, the
airplane can be dispatched into ETOPS service. On short flight segments, computed consumption
may appear to exceed limits due to the accumulation of indicating system tolerances and the
rounding off of fractional amounts of oil added during servicing. In such instances, computed
consumption should be cross checked against current trends, actual oil added, etc. prior to
further troubleshooting.

Page 16 ETOPS Manual REV D

 XYZ Airlines, Inc.
10.0 ENGINE CONDITION MONITORING PROGRAM (ECMP)

The purpose of the ECMP is to continuously monitor engine performance and to initiate timely corrective action
when necessary. This program will ensure that engine limit margins are maintained so that a prolonged single-
engine diversion may be conducted without exceeding approved engine limits (i.e., rotor speeds, exhaust gas
temperatures, etc.).

10.1 ECMP Procedures/Data Collection

The ECMP utilizes the ECM computer software provided by the engine manufacturer to provide trending
reports on the applicable engine parameters. Monitored parameters (depending on engine type/manufacturer)
include parameters such as EGT, N1, N2, Fuel Flow, AVM, Oil Temperature, and Oil Pressure.
Engine parameters are collected once per flight, at stable cruise conditions, by the Digital Flight Data
Acquisition Unit (DFDAU) and transmitted through ACARS (if used by XYZ Airlines) to XYZ Airlines Computer
Services central data processing facility for processing and then forwarded to Maintenance Control. If this data
path is inoperative for more than one day (or not used by XYZ Airlines), data will be recorded manually by the
flight crew and transmitted to Maintenance Control. Since this part of the ECMP is based on data trends, a
temporary delay of data does not adversely affect the program.
Once a day (or twice weekly), the engine manufacturer's ECM program will be run on the collected data. The
program produces an engine performance historical trend report for each installed engine. The report provides
a graphical trended representation of EGT, N1, N2, Fuel Flow, and AVM as well as a tabular record of oil
temperature and oil pressure. The trended data will be used to ensure that engine limit margins are maintained
so that a prolonged single-engine diversion (accounting for pneumatics loading, electrical loading, etc.) may be
conducted without exceeding approved engine limits (i.e., rotor speeds, exhaust gas temperatures).
On a monthly basis, a fleet average program is run. This resulting report summarizes fleet wide engine
performance. The report provides the means to isolate engines whose performance is deviating significantly
from the fleet average. Power Plant Engineering is responsible for conducting the ECMP, analyzing the results,
and identifying problems to be addressed per Section 12.

10.2 ECMP – Corrective Actions

Whenever an engine limit margin becomes a concern, Engineering will investigate the problem to determine
the cause. A "Maintenance Set Up" or "Maintenance Call Out" will be issued defining the corrective action
required. After corrective action has been implemented, verification of the maintenance will be performed in
accordance with Section 12 of this ETOPS manual.

REV D ETOPS Manual Page 17

 XYZ Airlines, Inc.
11.0 ETOPS MAINTENANCE OPERATING RESTRICTIONS POLICY

11.1 Dual Maintenance (Identical Maintenance on Similar Systems)

Identical maintenance action on multiple similar elements in ETOPS Significant Systems should not be
undertaken at the same maintenance visit without certain precautions being taken. Identical maintenance
action on multiple similar elements is defined as the same task (i.e. repair, replacement, or disassembly) being
performed on more than one of similar systems during the same maintenance visit, and, except in the case of
engine-driven components, on the same component. Engine-driven components are considered equivalent,
consequently the replacement of such components in any combination on both engines qualifies as an
identical maintenance action. Examples of the above would include: removal of both engine oil filters or both
chip detectors; replacement of both IDGs, EDPs, or replacement of the #1 IDG and the #2 EDP, etc.

NOTE: Servicing of fluids and gases is not considered multiple maintenance action.
Scheduled maintenance on multiple, similar systems will be scheduled by Production, Planning and Control so
that tasks will be performed during different check packages or different phases of phased checks.
Routine line checks will be staggered to prevent maintenance action from being performed on both systems at
the same time. In the case of non routine or unscheduled maintenance, technicians will refer to their ETOPS
training to identify dual maintenance tasks (some operators use a list of dual maintenance tasks available to
the technician in the logbook).
If, through some non-routine cause, multiple actions do occur, the following will apply:

1. Different mechanics will perform the maintenance on the similar systems; or

2. The work will be inspected by a maintenance supervisor or a QC inspector; and

3. A verification of the systems per Section 12 will be accomplished to ensure system integrity.
(AC 120-42B provides additional relief on an exception basis for a single technician to perform dual
maintenance under guidance from a centralized maintenance control followed by a verification flight).

The CMCC must be contacted to determine the necessity for a verification flight (per Section 12) or any other
additional checks based upon the systems involved and the maintenance performed.

11.2 Interchangeability of Components

Swapping components between ETOPS airplanes similar primary systems for trouble-shooting purposes (e.g.
installing #1 GCU in the #2 GCU location to ascertain if a problem is with the #2 GCU or further up the system)
should be done using extreme caution. Every precaution should be taken to assure that damage to the system
not in question, will not be affected. In those cases where similar components are swapped, positive
verification of system integrity per Section 12 is required for both systems.

Page 18 ETOPS Manual REV D

 XYZ Airlines, Inc.

12.0 RESOLUTION OF AIRPLANE DISCREPANCIES

Positive ground verification that the corrective action taken to resolve problems significant to ETOPS has been
effective, is required prior to subsequent ETOPS operation. Positive verification of effective maintenance is
also required for situations identified in Section 11. Verification may be accomplished by Built-in Test
Equipment (BITE), ground checks per the Fault Isolation Manual (FIM) or the Maintenance Manual (MM).
Under certain circumstances, it may be necessary to verify success of the maintenance action during an
actual flight.

12.1 Verification of Maintenance Action Requirements

Verification of maintenance is required in the following circumstances:

1. An ETOPS significant system failure;

2. An in-flight shutdown, uncommanded power change or surge, or inability to control an engine or obtain
desired power;
3. Failures of systems listed in FAR 21.3 and FAR 121.703;
4. Maintenance performed on multiple, similar systems (as defined in Section 11);
5. Swapping components in ETOPS Significant Systems for purposes of troubleshooting (see Section 11.2);
6. An engine change.

The CMCC may determine any other maintenance actions or conditions which will require verification on a
case-by-case basis.

12.2 Determination of the Need for In-flight Verification

In the event that maintenance action cannot be verified by normal ground tests, or the problem or fault cannot
be duplicated on the ground, an in-flight verification will be required. The CMCC will be contacted to determine
the necessity for a verification flight. A verification flight should be used ONLY in the following circumstances:

a. There is no effective ground check;

b. No Maintenance Manual Check exists;

c. BITE checks do not adequately verify system operation or effectiveness of the corrective action;
d. The system can only be finally "confirmed fixed" during actual operation in the air (i.e., fault cannot be
duplicated on ground).

12.3 Verification Flight Definition

A verification flight is a revenue or non-revenue flight during which the flight crew is asked to assist
maintenance in order to confirm that an ETOPS significant system is operating normally, or that an ETOPS
significant problem has been resolved. The duration or required number of flights is determined by the CMCC
in consultation with the Line Maintenance Operation. A verification flight may be conducted on a non-ETOPS
flight or during the first 60 minutes of an ETOPS revenue flight (i.e., prior to entry into the ETOPS portion of
the flight).

REV D ETOPS Manual Page 19

 XYZ Airlines, Inc.

12.4 Verification Flight Procedures

The CMCC and the departing line station determine if a verification flight is required. In the event of an ETOPS
Significant System failure, the maintenance history for that system will be reviewed by the local ETOPS
qualified person in charge of the airplane. If there are indications of repeat items or significant adverse trends,
the CMCC will be consulted to determine the appropriate corrective action. Items which may require
Verification Flights will be discussed with the CMCC for resolution.
A Verification Flight deferred item is entered in the applicable airplane logbook by the departing station or by
the CMCC. The deferred item will clearly identify the system(s) and/or component(s) to be verified prior to
ETOPS entry. This DMI will provide flight crew visibility via the DMI Log.
The CMCC must provide a DMI Number to authorize the deferral. The DMI Number provides Verification Flight
Requirement Notification to Flight Dispatch and the flight crew on the Flight Plan paperwork.
After 60 minutes from takeoff (or the minimum duration specified by the departing line station or the CMCC), or
prior to the ETOPS entry point, the flight crew will indicate the confirmation or failure of the system either
through an ACARS Open Log Record report or radio contact with the CMCC. Upon notification of successful
system correction, the flight crew will execute the ETOPS route and the down line station or CMCC will clear
the deferred item on arrival.
If the problem reoccurs during the verification flight, the flight crew will contact the CMCC and Flight Dispatch
for resolution. If the problem does not reoccur but associated flight deck or associated airframe sensory
indications are experienced, the flight crew will contact the CMCC and Flight Dispatch for resolution.

NOTE: In some cases, in-flight indications associated with a verification flight problem have not been a
cause for airplane return. Advisory information between the CMCC and Flight Dispatch to the flight
crew should be undertaken to determine flight continuation or turnback. The final decision is
determined by the pilot in command.

If the flight crew does not report the outcome of the verification flight, the local station will attempt to contact the
flight crew to confirm results of the verification flight. If time is not available or the crew is not able to be
contacted, a new verification flight must be initiated for the next leg.

Page 20 ETOPS Manual REV D

 XYZ Airlines, Inc.
13.0 ETOPS MAINTENANCE TRAINING PROGRAM

The ETOPS Maintenance Training Program is in addition to the standard maintenance training program supporting
signature authority. The goal of this program is to ensure that all personnel involved in ETOPS are provided the
necessary training to emphasize the special nature of ETOPS maintenance requirements and to ensure that
ETOPS procedures are properly accomplished.

13.1 ETOPS Qualified Maintenance Personnel

ETOPS qualified maintenance personnel are those that have completed XYZ Airline's ETOPS Maintenance
Training Program for the particular aircraft (systems and/or avionics course), the ETOPS training course, and
have satisfactorily performed extended-range tasks under the direct supervision of a certificated maintenance
person on the particular make and model airplanes being utilized (if applicable to your program requirements).
Completion of the XYZ Airline's ETOPS Maintenance Training program is noted on the maintenance
personnel's training records.
Annual (or bi-annual) recurrent ETOPS training is provided for ETOPS qualified maintenance personnel (if
applicable to your program). Recurrent training focuses on the following:

1. Significant changes to Airline XYZ's ETOPS program;

2. Significant ETOPS airplanes modification and configuration changes;

3. Review of ETOPS Training as required by local management.

At ETOPS remote stations, third party maintenance personnel and/or contractors otherwise qualified on the
type of airplanes, and whose training includes XYZ airplane differences and ETOPS training are eligible
for qualification.

13.2 ETOPS Familiarity Training

General ETOPS familiarity training is provided to management and other personnel who are involved in
ETOPS but do not directly maintain the airplanes. This is a one- time training program which is provided to
ensure awareness of the additional maintenance and operational requirements for ETOPS (if applicable to
your program).

13.3 ETOPS Training Responsibilities

The Manager of Technical Training is responsible for the development of the ETOPS Training curricula (see
document XYZ-TNG for an outline of XYZ's ETOPS Training Program). The Manager of Technical Training is
also responsible for the initial training of ETOPS qualified maintenance personnel and for administering the
ETOPS Familiarity Training Program. Individual XYZ Airline's stations and work centers are responsible for
annual recurrent ETOPS training.
The Manager of Technical Training is responsible for maintaining ETOPS training records and for maintaining
the list of currently qualified ETOPS maintenance personnel. The responsibility for ensuring that ETOPS
qualified maintenance personnel are available to perform required tasks lies with the individual station and
work center, and, in the case of remote ETOPS Stations, lies with the area Maintenance Manager.

REV D ETOPS Manual Page 21

 XYZ Airlines, Inc.
13.4 ETOPS Qualified Personnel – Task Requirements

The following tasks require ETOPS qualified maintenance personnel:

1. Oversee or accomplish non-routine line maintenance on ETOPS airplane;

2. Accomplish the ETOPS Pre-Departure Service Check (per Section 5);

3. Accomplish "A" Check Maintenance on ETOPS Significant Systems and components;
4. Ensure that policy and procedures covered in this ETOPS Manual are adhered to. This includes, but is not
limited to:

a. Configuration Control;

b. Procedures in the event of multiple maintenance actions on ETOPS Significant Systems;

c. Procedural control of the airplanes.

Page 22 ETOPS Manual REV D