IFlyADesk From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 309 posts, RR: 1 Reply 2, posted (11 years 11 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 1529 times:
Ben88 From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 1093 posts, RR: 3 Reply 3, posted (11 years 11 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 1530 times:
Many of people's worries are caused by ignorance. (no offense to anyone) Next time you fly on an ETOPS flight ask one of the crew members to show you the enroute ETOPS map and that alone should calm your fears quite a bit. ETOPS flights are more closely scrutinized than non-ETOPS and I would rather fly on a twin than a quad from a safety standpoint.
A330/B777 From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 164 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (11 years 11 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 1522 times:
I would and do feel perfectly fine flying a twin-engine across the Atlantic, but would not feel so fine flying one across the Pacific. No real reason, just my gut telling me how to feel I guess.
BlatantEcho From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1870 posts, RR: 1 Reply 5, posted (11 years 11 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 1514 times:
I would prefer to be on a twin on any long range flight. Over water, land, whatever.
DeltAirlines From United States of America, joined May 1999, 8771 posts, RR: 13 Reply 8, posted (11 years 11 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 1482 times:
I feel same crossing the pond in a twin. The ETOPS maps show that Gander, KEF, and SNN are going to be within range throughout the flight.
Mac From United States of America, joined exactly 12 years ago today! , 293 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (11 years 11 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 1476 times:
Four or more for me across any large body of water...along with all the booze I can buy to put me in
Winken, Blinken and Nod land for the duration of the flight.
Gregg From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 327 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (11 years 11 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 1473 times:
Twins are very safe. They have even more safety equipment (even some not related to having only 2 engines) then non-etops flights. They are very safe. I'll take a twin anyday.
IFlyADesk From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 309 posts, RR: 1 Reply 11, posted (11 years 11 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 1469 times:
One thing that hasn't been mentioned yet is that ETOPS flights are not only restricted to overwater flights. With the recent hooplah of Polar routes, many of these flight plans are over Siberia. Without an appropriate place to divert (in the event of an emergency), Siberia might as well be an ocean.
Divert points such as Anadyr, Norilsk, Novosibirsk, Krasnoyarsk, and Tiksi, et al are vital. However, just because the airports are there does not mean that they are suitable enroute alternates. An airline MUST keep in mind the status of these airports. Are they open 24-hours a day? Do they have instrument approaches that are reliable? Are they equipped for CFR? Do they have NOTAMs and/or snow removal?
ILOVEA340 From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 2100 posts, RR: 5 Reply 12, posted (11 years 11 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 1471 times:
I have never been scared in any planes at any time. Even when our engine cut in our piper. ETOPS is the certification that it is safe for this plane to fly this route so why worry.
BoilerAT From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 13, posted (11 years 11 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 1468 times:
ETOPS flights are extremely safe. I can assure you that ETOPS operations are carefully examined, and maintenance procedures are much more stringent than for regular flights. The extremely low failure rates for ETOPS flights that have been analyzed for a decade now show that this program is extremely safe. As an interesting sidenote, I've recently learned that the FAA will be adding regulations to raise the requirements for overwater flights on quads shortly.
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10561 posts, RR: 53 Reply 14, posted (11 years 11 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 1461 times:
Pilot Mark Rogers, an A320 FO for United Airlines talks about why 2 are better than 4.
Lax2000 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 541 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (11 years 11 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 1436 times:
767s and 757s seem to have a better safety record etops or no etops than 747's or DC-10's and for sure md11's anyway. So I actually feel just as safe or safer going from LA to Hawawii on a 757 or 767 than I do on a 747-100 or 200 or DC10. The 767 and 757 probably have had the least problems of any plane in the last 30 years. So far the 777 and A330 have also proven to be very safe. Besides how many commercial aviation crashes can you name that happened from losing engines over the ocean, or land for that matter in the last 30 years.
PhilB From Ireland, joined May 1999, 2915 posts, RR: 14 Reply 17, posted (11 years 11 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 1437 times:
IFlyADesk has raised a good issue, some of the diversion airfields are "iffy", especially in winter.
I know all the plus points of the extra scrutiny of ETOPS twins. I know the engine failure rate, the extra fire protection and know that there are now few routes under the 180 minute rule that only quads can fly.
But I also think of it this way, and I've posted this before:
Would you buy a ticket from an airline which stated you will fly with 200+ other souls and may, just, have the chance to be on a single engined jetliner for up to 3 hours 27 minutes over water, polar ice cap or desert?
767-332ER From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 2030 posts, RR: 12 Reply 18, posted (11 years 11 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 1419 times:
I have done it many times and I am doing it once more this tuesday, so I feel very safe onboard a 763ER or a 777 or an A330 crossing the Atlantic or even the Pacific.
Twinjets...if one fails, work the other one twice as hard!!!
YoungDon From United States of America, joined May 2001, 306 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (11 years 11 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 1400 times:
Some people responding to this question are looking at it from, IMHO, a very shallow point of view. Saying things such as 'twice as many engines means twice as much to go wrong'.
There is one main reason that I feel slightly safer on quads or trijets on long routes. (I still feel quite safe on twins, don't get me wrong.) It is simply not true that the extra engines on quads or trijets means that there is more to go wrong. Here's why:
In all commonly used jet engines used on long range planes (think CFM56, CF6, RB211, Trent, GE90, JT9D, PW4000, etc.) the likelyhood that an engine will inexplicably fail (due to internal engine factors) is basically the same. This basically means that you have the same chance of having one engine fail on a quad, trijet, or twin. Now the question is, which would you rather be on if one engine was to fail? Think about it.
QantasA3XX From Singapore, joined Dec 2000, 218 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (11 years 11 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 1394 times:
Well , yeah its safe why not . Boeing and Airbus are very reliable , chances of engine failure are low depends on which airlines and how they maintained their planes . Personally , i be worried if theres an engine failure , but i trust the pilot to land the plane safely with ETOPS certified to the twin- engine .
IFlyADesk From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 309 posts, RR: 1 Reply 21, posted (11 years 11 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 1390 times:
That reminds me of back when I used to fly small Cessnas. My best friend would never fly with me because he didn't like the idea of flying in a single-engine airplane, and he insisted on flying in a twin at best (which he later did).
My argument was that with a single-engine aircraft (versus a twin), there was a 50% LESS chance of losing an engine. He never had a good retort to that logic...
Arch89U From United States of America, joined May 2001, 188 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (11 years 11 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 1383 times:
ETOPS flights are safe. Thats like saying I don't feel safe in a single engine aircraft that I've preflighted yourself. I feel safe, and I know there's someone doing more than a simple preflight for this flight, and I feel perfectly safe.
I need to go to bed, sorry about the jumbled explanation,
Baec777 From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 1231 posts, RR: 2 Reply 23, posted (11 years 11 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 1377 times:
I haven't yet flown any twin engines (ETOPs) at all...
Maybe this summer I will fly to middle east using AA777 to Paris.. then AF to Jordan... are A340 ETOPs certified..?
TWA717_200 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 24, posted (11 years 11 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 1374 times:
Yes, I would feel safe. However, all of my overwater flights have been on trijets.
25 FP_v2: Nope.....I feel right at home flying anywhere on any newer aircraft(1985 +). For example I would be a little anxious about flying a 747-200 accross th
26 Hepkat: We are forgetting that it doesn't matter whether an ETOPS twin flies over land or sea, it's still only 2-3 hours away from a suitable diversion airpor
27 RayChuang: I think people have nothing to worry about in regards to ETOPS certification. Remember, ETOPS is more than just very high reliability of engines, hydr
28 An-225: I don't have any second thoughts. Hell, I'd board An-2 across the Pacific if I had a chance.
29 ILOVEA340: We are planning on planning a flight in a Europa (1100 nm range @ 180 Knots 2 seats rotax 914 engine, single engine on 28 gallons of fuel) from the us
30 PhilB: RayChuang, Delta B767 ex Manchester diverted off the ocean into SNN, at least one Aer Lingus A330 landed minus 1 engine at SNN off the ocean and there
31 Gregg: PhillB, Your comment: "...You are right, of course, that most of the problems make themselves apparent during the take off/climb phase but you can get
32 Gerardo: Statistics here and there, but my feeling says, that four engines are safer than two. Gerardo
33 LAX: I think I feel somewhat safer in a 3 or 4-engined craft....rather than just 2. But, from the statistics I've read concerning the incredible performanc
34 Bobnwa: I have a question for those who say they prefer a twin engine over a four engine because thy only have half the chance for an engine failure. Would yo
35 RayChuang: Bobnwa, If the engines on the 747-400 were maintained to the same strict criteria required for ETOPS-certified planes, then you have a point. However,
36 Virgin744: I have just got back from a trip to the US yesterday and I flew on a AA 777. For the first time in 23years flying on planes, I was scared. But that co
37 Turbulence: to be honest I was not going to write anything, since everything that can be said has been said in any possible ways. Also, because all my transatlant
38 GOT: I always feel safe in an aircraft, whether it has two, three or four engines. As long as I can hear the sound from the engines, I don't care how many
39 Ambasaid: IFlyadesk/PhilB, Your logic about flying over Siberia is flawed, you talk about the availability of enroute airports. The twin may not be allowed to f
40 Wannabe: In all the years that twins have been flying across the oceans, how many succesful trips have there been and how many trips have ended in disaster due
41 Airplanetire: I have never thought about it that much so it does not bother me. I will be flying to Zurich from Atlanta next week on a Swissair A330 and I am more e
42 BlueJet: Nothings gonna happen! I dont really care what I get, I just have to get to the destination.
43 EGGD: ok guys, here is my intellectual insight into this discussion. Firstly, i feel safe in whatever aircraft i am flying in, whether its a Boeing B747-400
44 Srbmod: With the reliability of today's aircraft engines, ETOPS flights are as commonplace as crossing the street. Even though the chances of a single engine
45 D L X: You know, I see a lot of BAD STATISTICS going on here. People have correctly noted that the chance of a particular engine failing is about the same wh
46 MightyFalcon: I just read the all discussion on this topic and I have to say that flying ETOPS on a twin-engined-aircraft doesn't scare me at all; ETOPS certificati
47 D L X: Not quite. ETOPS-207 is really ETOPS-180 with a weather allowance. If an alternate for -180 is closed for weather at the time of departure but expecte
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 2290 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, 
From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1408 posts, 
From Bouvet Island, joined May 1999, 2205 posts, 
, 293 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Ireland, joined May 1999, 2915 posts, 
From Singapore, joined Dec 2000, 218 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
