Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Do You Feel Safe Aboard An Etops Flight?  
User currently offlineLAX From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 2290 posts, RR: 3
Posted (14 years 1 month 14 hours ago) and read 3099 times:

Does it worry you being so far from land in just a 2-engined jetliner?

Was just curious as to whether anyone who does a lot of ETOPS flying ever has had second thoughts about boarding?


47 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 56
Reply 1, posted (14 years 1 month 14 hours ago) and read 2963 times:


User currently offlineIFlyADesk From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 309 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (14 years 1 month 14 hours ago) and read 2950 times:

North Atlantic, yes. South Pacific, no.

User currently offlineBen88 From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 1093 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (14 years 1 month 14 hours ago) and read 2951 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.

User currently offlineA330/B777 From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 164 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (14 years 1 month 14 hours ago) and read 2943 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.

User currently offlineBlatantEcho From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1956 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (14 years 1 month 14 hours ago) and read 2935 times:

I would prefer to be on a twin on any long range flight. Over water, land, whatever.


They're not handing trophies out today
User currently offlineRuscoe From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1670 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (14 years 1 month 13 hours ago) and read 2921 times:

No. Twin has half the chance of a failure.

User currently offlineAvion From Bouvet Island, joined May 1999, 2205 posts, RR: 7
Reply 7, posted (14 years 1 month 13 hours ago) and read 2913 times:

I would feel better on a quad. However being in a twin is no problem for me.

I still think that quads are better suited to transoceanic crossings.


User currently offlineDeltAirlines From United States of America, joined May 1999, 8946 posts, RR: 11
Reply 8, posted (14 years 1 month 13 hours ago) and read 2903 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.


User currently offlineMac From United States of America, joined May 2001, 293 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (14 years 1 month 13 hours ago) and read 2897 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.

User currently offlineGregg From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 327 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (14 years 1 month 13 hours ago) and read 2894 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.

User currently offlineIFlyADesk From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 309 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (14 years 1 month 13 hours ago) and read 2890 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?

ETOPS DOES NOT apply to just overwater routes...

User currently offlineILOVEA340 From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 2100 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (14 years 1 month 13 hours ago) and read 2892 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.

User currently offlineBoilerAT From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (14 years 1 month 13 hours ago) and read 2889 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.

User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11918 posts, RR: 51
Reply 14, posted (14 years 1 month 12 hours ago) and read 2882 times:

Pilot Mark Rogers, an A320 FO for United Airlines talks about why 2 are better than 4.


(Not like this topic hasn't been discussed to death already, and not like people will let their emotion give way to logic...)

Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineATCT From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 2452 posts, RR: 36
Reply 15, posted (14 years 1 month 12 hours ago) and read 2868 times:

Think, The More engines, the More to go wrong  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

"The way to get started is to quit talking and begin doing." - Walt Disney
User currently offlineLax2000 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 541 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (14 years 1 month 12 hours ago) and read 2857 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.

User currently offlinePhilB From Ireland, joined May 1999, 2915 posts, RR: 13
Reply 17, posted (14 years 1 month 12 hours ago) and read 2858 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?

User currently offline767-332ER From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 2030 posts, RR: 10
Reply 18, posted (14 years 1 month 11 hours ago) and read 2840 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!!!
User currently offlineYoungDon From United States of America, joined May 2001, 485 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (14 years 1 month 10 hours ago) and read 2821 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.

User currently offlineQantasA3XX From Singapore, joined Dec 2000, 218 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (14 years 1 month 10 hours ago) and read 2815 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 .


User currently offlineIFlyADesk From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 309 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (14 years 1 month 10 hours ago) and read 2811 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...

User currently offlineArch89U From United States of America, joined May 2001, 188 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (14 years 1 month 9 hours ago) and read 2804 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,


User currently offlineBaec777 From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 1231 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (14 years 1 month 9 hours ago) and read 2798 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..?

Baec777  Smokin cool

User currently offlineTWA717_200 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (14 years 1 month 9 hours ago) and read 2795 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 Post contains images 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 Post contains images 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 Post contains links and images 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 Post contains images 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 Post contains images 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 Post contains images 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 Post contains images 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
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...
Do You Feel Safe In Transit Zone? posted Thu Mar 4 2004 23:04:22 by Kilavoud
Do You Feel Safe Flying Now? posted Sun Sep 16 2001 00:22:52 by WSRegal
How Do You Feel When An Airplane Is Retired? posted Sat Mar 2 2002 07:17:07 by Jhooper
Do You Feel At Home On An Airliner? posted Tue Sep 5 2000 20:41:26 by Boeing747-400
How Safe Do You Feel? posted Wed Nov 24 1999 07:21:46 by SEA nw DC10
How Early Can You Check-in For An Int'l Flight? posted Mon Nov 27 2006 22:19:16 by Eastern023
Would You Feel Safe Flying On This Aircraft? posted Mon Feb 27 2006 03:44:01 by GEEZ
Do You Feel The Same Way I Do posted Tue Oct 18 2005 20:48:37 by RIPCORDD
How Do You Feel About Composites? posted Thu Apr 28 2005 13:35:11 by NAV20
9/11. 3 Years Later. Do You Feel Safer? posted Sat May 22 2004 02:50:49 by Cjuniel