Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing Seeks ETOPS240  
User currently offlineGaut From Belgium, joined Dec 2001, 344 posts, RR: 2
Posted (13 years 1 month 2 days ago) and read 1005 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?

Gaut



«Horum omnium fortissimi sunt Belgae.»
15 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineB747-437B From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (13 years 1 month 2 days ago) and read 958 times:

ETOPS240 is a technicality, since ETOPS207 will open up pretty much every route in the world for twins. However, ETOPS240 will allow Boeing to withdraw subsidies to diversion airports.

User currently offlineMD-11 forever From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (13 years 1 month 2 days ago) and read 951 times:

Gaut,

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....


User currently offlineJoni From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (13 years 1 month 2 days ago) and read 952 times:


They are unlikely to get that, since the authorities are looking at removing the 207 minute rule and reverting to 180.



User currently offlineGaut From Belgium, joined Dec 2001, 344 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (13 years 1 month 2 days ago) and read 948 times:

Joni,

I never heard that, where did you found this info?

Gaut



«Horum omnium fortissimi sunt Belgae.»
User currently offlineB747-437B From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (13 years 1 month 2 days ago) and read 947 times:

Joni - which "authorities" are you referring to?

User currently offlineBoeing747-400 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (13 years 1 month 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 928 times:

What "authorities" are you reffering to? You still haven't responded to B747-437B with a source.

Maybe the imaginary "anti-Boeing" authorities?


User currently offlineBlatantEcho From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1903 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (13 years 1 month 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 914 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.

Four hours on one engine is old hat.

My $.02, respectfully of course,
BlatantEcho



They're not handing trophies out today
User currently offlineDeltaSFO From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 2488 posts, RR: 22
Reply 8, posted (13 years 1 month 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 893 times:


Username: Joni

Posted 2001-06-23 17:13:01 and read 57 times.


They are unlikely to get that, since the authorities are looking at removing the 207 minute rule and
reverting to 180.


Unless Noel Forgeard or John Leahy have second jobs with the FAA, I doubt that.



It's a new day. Every moment matters. Now, more than ever.
User currently offlineGalaxy5 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2034 posts, RR: 25
Reply 9, posted (13 years 1 month 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 892 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
User currently offlineGaut From Belgium, joined Dec 2001, 344 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (13 years 1 month 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 885 times:

BlatantEcho,

If we follow your idea why Airbus and Boeing don't build a single engined aircraft???
Maybe for safety reasons ?
You are comparing an 10 seat propeller with 400+ pax aircraft!



«Horum omnium fortissimi sunt Belgae.»
User currently offlineLON-CHI From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 219 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (13 years 1 month 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 881 times:

Galaxy5,

An aircraft with four engines has more of a chance to experience problems with one of those engines compared to an aircraft with only two. It's all about probability.


User currently offlineA330/B777 From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 164 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (13 years 1 month 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 880 times:

All things being equal though, if both planes (A340 + B777) loose two engines, won't one be having a much more difficult time maintaining altitude?

This whole argument about having twice as much that can go wrong with a quad is pointless. Redundency is not a liability.


User currently offlineHa2vegas From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 148 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (13 years 1 month 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 875 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.

User currently offlineB747-437B From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (13 years 1 month 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 870 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.

User currently offlineLON-CHI From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 219 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (13 years 1 month 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 858 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.


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...
Boeing Seeks USD400M Tax Refund posted Tue May 28 2002 21:19:25 by Joni
Boeing Seeks ETOPS240 posted Sat Jun 23 2001 17:06:52 by Gaut
Speea Seeks Rejection Of Boeing Wichita Offer posted Tue Feb 24 2009 21:59:58 by Tugger
EK Seeks Guarantee From Boeing For 787-10 posted Thu Jul 19 2007 06:08:09 by UAEflyer
Boeing Landing System Seeks To Help Airlines Cut C posted Mon Jan 31 2005 21:02:26 by BlackKnight
Vietnam Air Signs Airbus Deal, Seeks 4 Boeing 7E7s posted Wed Dec 8 2004 15:24:27 by Nyc777
Boeing's Management Of The 787 Program posted Sun Jul 12 2009 14:16:07 by TomB
Did Boeing Ever Consider A Short Range 777? posted Fri Jul 10 2009 09:44:47 by 727LOVER
An A300 Beluga / Boeing Dreamliner Question? posted Thu Jul 9 2009 12:17:50 by Vald
Boeing NLA Project posted Wed Jul 8 2009 13:48:33 by Kaktusdigital