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.
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?
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.
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?
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,