Gaut From Belgium, joined Dec 2001, 344 posts, RR: 2 Posted (13 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1091 times:
Boeing is pushing to have its B777 cleared for at least 240min extended twin-engines operations (ETOPS).
I know the B777 is a very reliable aircraft and I don't have problem with ETOPS regulation but I think 4 h flying on only one engine is too much. Imagine flying over the ocean during 4h on only one engine!
What are your thought about that?
MD-11 forever From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (13 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1037 times:
I agree with you. But I can already hear those claiming that on a four engined jet it is double as likely to loose an engine..... But I prefer to have four or at least three for a trip that would require the ETOPS 240 limit....
BlatantEcho From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1946 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (13 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 1000 times:
Four hours on one engine.......jeezus, Cessnas can fly that long. What about the Pilatus?? I'm at the point, where I simply get tired of the one engine thing. So what?? One engine will get you where you are going, even on a twin, ETOPS wouldn't be in place if it didn't. Give me a twin over a 4 holer anyday, especially over the Pacific. That at least halves my chances that an uncontainted engine failure could destroy or severly damage the plane and force it down in the ocean.
Galaxy5 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2034 posts, RR: 24
Reply 9, posted (13 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 978 times:
how come you guys keep saying that a four engine aircraft has such a better chance of engine failure, its just not true. its still the same engines made by the same companies, yes it may be inspected more frequently but it still will have the same mean time between failure.
"damn, I didnt know prince could Ball like that" - Charlie Murphy
Ha2vegas From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 148 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (13 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 961 times:
Probabilty does not dictate that having 4 engines multiplies the chances of a failure. Assuming all other factors are consistent, the probability that any one engine will fail is identical whether there are 2, 4, or 10 enignes involved.
B747-437B From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (13 years 10 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 956 times:
Ha2vegas - Your logic holds true for the probability of one PARTICULAR engine failing. However, the probability of ANY one engine failing increases as the sample size of engines under consideration increases.
LON-CHI From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 219 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (13 years 10 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 944 times:
Well said, B747-437B. You explained it much better than I did.
A330/B777, the argument is not pointless, IMO. As it has been explained here, a four-engine plane has more of a chance experiencing an engine failure than a two engine craft. So, along those lines, a four engine craft also has more of a chance of experiencing an uncontained engine failure, which can could possibly bring that plane down. Sure, the chances of that happening are slim, but probably not as slim as a two-engine airplane losing both engines in flight.