Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Transpacific Twins: What About Them?  
User currently offlineDCA-ROCguy From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 4507 posts, RR: 34
Posted (14 years 5 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1438 times:

Dear All,

What is the status right now of using Big Twins on transpacific routes? I read that the FAA recently gave the 777 207-minute ETOPS clearance. Is this sufficient time to allow for the gap between Anchorage and Sapporo, or does it presuppose a Russian air base somewhere in between?

And the legality aside, is this a good thing? I'd be perfectly confident flying on a 767 or 777 across the Atlantic, but am not as sure I'd like a scenic view of the Kamchatka Peninsula from a Big Twin. Yet I know that Big Twins have a fine record across the Atlantic, and would cut costs and improve service options over the Pacific.

What's the scoop?

Jim K.
Washington, DC


Need a new airline paint scheme? Better call Saul! (Bass that is)
21 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineCONTINENTALEWR From United States of America, joined May 2000, 3762 posts, RR: 13
Reply 1, posted (14 years 5 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1274 times:

Continental operates the 777 on its daily Newark and Houston to Tokyo
flights. American flies the plane from DFW and ORD to Tokyo and will
soon operate it from Seattle/Tacoma and San Jose/Silicon Valley if it
does not do so already.

I believe all ETOPS 777's are required to operate within two hours of a
landing field, even a Russian base if necessary.

I would not feel confident on a 777 across the pacific.

As for the 767, Asiana Airlines briefly operated the 767-300 from SEA
to Seoul's Kimpo Airport prior to the Asian financial crisis.


User currently offline777x From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (14 years 5 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1263 times:

Great question, lots of people state that they don't fell safe in twins across the big pond... but

ETOPS incorporates more than engines, in fact an ETOPS rated twin is SAFER than a 3 or 4 holer because they require additional safety equipment like fire suppression in the cargo hold (lacking in 4 holers) and other things.

Also, twins are LESS likely to divert because of engine failure, and the likelyhood of a double engine failure is SO low that it can be discounted. I read once that a double engine failure (from independent causes) is less that 1 in a billion hours flight (and there have not been a billion hours flight yet in commercial aviation).

In fact, the biggest problem ANY plane (2/3/4 holers) would face is a pressurization failure while far away from a diversion field. In this case it make NO difference if the plane has 1/2/3/4/5/6/7/8 engines.

I would be more than happy to fly a twin across the pacific, as it's actually SAFER than flying a 3/4 holer

my 2c


User currently offlineSlawko From Canada, joined May 1999, 3799 posts, RR: 9
Reply 3, posted (14 years 5 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1245 times:

I have flown Korean from Seoul to Toronto Non Stop... Was great!!! Even if it was Korean...hehe


"Clive Beddoe says he favours competition, but his actions do not support that idea." Robert Milton - CEO Air Canada
User currently offlineCstarU From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (14 years 5 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1242 times:

UA is the first airline to receive a 207 min ETOPS from the FAA. CO and AA will probably be next. It's granted only on a case by case basis by the FAA and only applies to NOPAC.

User currently offlineWingman From Seychelles, joined May 1999, 2289 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (14 years 5 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1242 times:

One of the reasons the FAA cited in extending ETOPS to 207 minutes was the history of trans-oceanic twin engine flights vs. four engine flights. The history speaks for itself. ETOPS procedures have created a safer record in terms of in-flight shutdowns and diversions vs. quads. Your fear of flying 777s is completely unfounded. Statistically and historically speaking, it is safer than flying a 747 or 340, contrary to the doomsday prophecies of Airbus.

User currently offlineVelocityair From United States of America, joined May 2000, 134 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (14 years 5 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1214 times:

777x- Hear about what happened to the little J31 coming into Wilkes-Barre the other day?
if ". I read once that a double engine failure (from independent causes) is less that 1 in a billion hours flight (and there have not been a billion hours flight yet in commercial aviation" --you
well there was a double engine failure in a propliner, albeit not independant causes, still 2 engines did fail.

Peace


User currently offlineBen88 From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 1093 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (14 years 5 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1207 times:

The possibility of losing two engines is not as impossible as you're making it sound. Remember the Taca 737 that lost both engines and had to land on a levy in New Orleans?

User currently offlinePronto From Canada, joined Mar 2000, 328 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (14 years 5 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1206 times:

Stop it!!! These engines on 777s are top notch!!! There is no need to fear flying distances over water with 'only' two engines. This is the year 2000, not 1950!!!! Don't compare the turboprops on a J31 to the engines on a 777.....

User currently offlineVelocityair From United States of America, joined May 2000, 134 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (14 years 5 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1201 times:

are you discounting the craftsmanship of JetStream? LOL....
i was just making a point ... 2 engines can fail
thank you Ben88


User currently offlineLBSteve From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (14 years 5 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1196 times:

What about air rage or if someone has a heart attack? In either case I would hope the plane would be somewhat near an airport than way out over the ocean. I worry about the human factor more than the mechanical one... perhaps in this respect ETOPS is a better way to go.

User currently offlineCwapilot From United States of America, joined May 2000, 1166 posts, RR: 17
Reply 11, posted (14 years 5 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1186 times:

The fact remains, the engines are not the only factor...ETOPs is a matter of not only the engines, but ALL of the aircraft systems, as well as the airline operating the equipment. Besides, to compare a 777 to a propliner is rediculous. Anything CAN happen...but the likelihood, given the technology, is slim. And, the type of catastrophe that would cause BOTH engines to fail in a 777, would more than likely involve other factors, including massive systems failures. So you have a choice between slamming into the ocean or slamming into the solid ground anyhow. The systems on the A330/A340 are very much similar. So, the only thing that makes some feel "safer" are the extra couple engines (smaller and less reliable at that) on an A340. 777 systems were designed to be much more fail safe, due to these fears, moreso even than the 747. While you may not agree there is more to place confidence in in the 777, there is at least as much to place confidence in for the A340 as the 777. Sharp contrasts in Boeing's outlook and Airbus' outlook....on the Boeing site, in the FAQ section, one of the FAQs is "Are certain airliners safer than others?" The answer given is that all jetliners, by any manufacturer, are safe and reliable and well designed, going through rigorous tests and regulation. In contrast, Airbus releases ads trying to scare people into wanting to fly on 4 engine airliners since twin engine widebodies are unsafe! If I remember correctly, and looking at some old Airbus ads in Aviation Week, AIRBUS pioneered the twinengine widebody, and advertised the A300 as more reliable and economica than the competing widebodies, at the time the DC10, L1011 and 747! Don't believe me? Pull up some AW&ST issues from the mid to late 60's and early 70's. Both are safe reliable aircraft...scare tactics are not necessary...sasd thing is, seems to be working on some people.


Southside Irish...our two teams are the White Sox and whoever plays the Cubs!
User currently offlineCYLW From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 438 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (14 years 5 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 1181 times:

Canadian Airlines has been flying 763ERs from Vancouver to Asia for years. No engine failures as far as I know.

User currently offlineDCA-ROCguy From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 4507 posts, RR: 34
Reply 13, posted (14 years 5 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 1162 times:

Thanks to all for replies so far....I'm more confident in the triple-seven already. Loved ones tell me that the 777 is far more comfortable--wider seats--than the 744 for long flights. "And the wings on the 777 don't flap as much in wind," said one.

As for the Jetstream 31, it's of course not built for long flights overseas so both-engine failure is probably much more likely. The J31 is the only plane I've ever flown that I would call unacceptable--three across with room for only two. And my teeth were loose by the time we got to Dulles. How Atlantic Coast/ United Express prospers with those awful things I don't know.

I get the impression that the "Midway Alternative" would be much less desirable than NOPAC--longer flight time.

Jim



Need a new airline paint scheme? Better call Saul! (Bass that is)
User currently offlineBig777jet From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (14 years 5 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 1159 times:

Yes, remember that TACA 737-300 landed on the swamp. 30 miles from New Orleans. The 737 lost both engines cause by the lighting struck went out the electric! They can't restart engines at all! Whoa, brave pilot made emergency landing on the grass along near the canal. I saw the picture a few years ago on OAG Frequent Flyer magazine. They did took all seats and overbins out because of weight. They have to put the flat wooden to make the runway for take off. The 737 back to MSY. TACA's 737-300 is still flying somewhere today.



User currently offlineHamlet69 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2744 posts, RR: 58
Reply 15, posted (14 years 5 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1144 times:

The last I heard, the fuel system was being suspected in the J-31 crash. And as Big777jet pointed out, the TACA incident involved lightening. The point is that in both instances, it wasn't the engines themselves that were the problem, but related systems. Therefore, take any long-range flight, and introduce the aforementioned circumstances, and it doesn't matter how many engines, they are all affected. And that's where ETOPS comes in, as it makes not just the engines, but all the related systems more reliable and/or redundant. And yes, 3/4 engined aircraft have a higher rate of diversion than twins. Remember, just because you have 4 engines, you still get diverted to the nearest airport if only one shuts down.

Hamlet69



Honor the warriors, not the war.
User currently offlineWinAir From United States of America, joined May 1999, 270 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (14 years 5 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1130 times:

Eh, I think some of you may be a bit mistaken.
I think that pacific flights (from LAX anyway) more or less go north...not out into the middle of the pacific ocean.
I do LAX-NRT routinly in the simulator and my route usually takes me up the coast until around northern california where i slowly break away from the coast. and continue on hanging off the coast of canada, alaska and then around hte bering (spelling?) strait down by russia and into japan...

Of course, i could be wrong...if i am...sorry  


User currently offline777x From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (14 years 5 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 1116 times:

Velocityair -

I said from INDEPENENT CAUSES, which most most likely NOT the case in the J-31 crash, which by the way is a prop plane not a jet, and props are MUCH less reliable than jet engines

Ben88 -

Again, INDEPENDENT causes, the TACA double engine failure was due to one cause, lightning strike, which, had the aircraft had more than 2 engines, would have shut those down as well, making the whole point moot.







User currently offlineWingman From Seychelles, joined May 1999, 2289 posts, RR: 5
Reply 18, posted (14 years 5 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 1088 times:

I saw this event (tape delayed of course) on Discovery a few months ago. The landing on the levee outside New Orleans was nothing short of miraculous. The Captain retraced the event with a film crew and they followed the same flight path. The Co-Captain apparently saw this levee after they had already informed ATC they were ditching in the water. He spotted it by sheer luck and they were at just the right altitude and distance to glide right in. That, my friends, is a miracle.

PS- same Captain a few years earlier survived a hijacking on a TACA 737 and managed to land safely after having his faced practically carved off by a knife. The scar was like something out of a comic book.



User currently offlineGreenArc From United States of America, joined May 2000, 79 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (14 years 5 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1086 times:

TACA flameouts were caused by water ingestion, not lightning.

GreenArc


User currently offlineBen88 From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 1093 posts, RR: 3
Reply 20, posted (14 years 5 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1076 times:

My only point was that it is not impossible for a jet aircraft to lose all of its engines...I implied nothing more than that.

User currently offlineVelocityair From United States of America, joined May 2000, 134 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (14 years 5 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1049 times:

lesson:
jet engines were derived from turbine engines which are derived from props which are turbine engines... now you are saying that a prop engine is and i quote, "less reliable." end quote. when in fact a jet engine is nothing more than a prop with over 100 blades and with forced air. next time you are looking at airplanes ... see if you can get closer than 150 yds to the ramp. because believe me, they are no different... one is more efficient (the prop) but the same amount of workmanship and reliability goes into each one. independant or not the cause still happened ... 2 engine failures ... one airplane. again ... please try to get on a ramp have a looksee of a prop very nice, very efficient... small versions of their big sisters that power the mighty Trents


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
European -EAL What About Them? posted Fri Mar 8 2002 09:56:52 by N737MC
Ishtar Airways: What Do You Know About Them? posted Fri Jun 17 2005 14:39:14 by Aleksandar
Guy America. What do you know about them? posted Mon Mar 22 2004 13:46:42 by LatinAviation
Why All The Publicity About JetBlue, What About VS posted Thu Feb 22 2007 04:36:56 by CoolGuy
What About An FL-YX-AS-HA Hook-up? posted Sun Jan 14 2007 06:22:00 by Uncgso
BA CityFlyer - What About GB Airways? posted Sat Jan 13 2007 14:05:10 by CYatUK
TAM Receives 75th Airbus, But What About The MD11? posted Tue Jan 9 2007 18:27:46 by Jog
Brazil Air Traffic Chaos - What About New Year? posted Thu Dec 21 2006 21:35:14 by Famfmarques
Mass Diversions -- What About Landing Fees, Slots? posted Tue Nov 21 2006 10:27:41 by Brenintw
If DL Left SLC What About The Regionals? posted Thu Nov 16 2006 06:23:42 by IdaBoy