Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Whats Your Opinion On Etops?  
User currently offlineN821NW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks ago) and read 11530 times:

I was wondering what was everybody at A.net opinion on the ETOPS program.

I personally love the ETOPS program and would fly a ETOPS jet over a four engine one any day because in my opinion since they are ETOPS certified they are (maybe) better maintained then a quad-jet, and for a bonus they are better for the environment.

However somebody (Richard Wyeroski) thinks that ETOPS is SUPER dangerous and that it is only a matter of time before a ETOPS jet crashes into the ocean killing everybody on-board...supposedly he has proof that ETOPS is a "ticking time bomb" (I think that all his "proof" is rubbish but that is just my opinion), he hates ETOPS so much he even created a ranting forum about it, please read it and tell me what think about it.
http://airnation.net/hangar/threads/...-engines-are-better-than-two.1343/

@Moderators: If I did ANYTHING wrong please delete this thread.

102 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12782 posts, RR: 100
Reply 1, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 11462 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Why are we still debating ETOPS? Its *proven* safe. The added maintenance requirements that ETOPS imposed have found there way into 4 engine operations. The next stage will be more narrowbody ETOPS. The only people who have an issue with ETOPS tend to be those with an economic incentive to favor established airframes or airlines vs. new competition.

There is no turning back the clock. As much as the A310/767/A330/777 opened up the globe... the 787 and A350 will do far more.

I refuse to read a rant. ETOPS is based on statistics that have proven themselves out. The majority of TATL traffic has been ETOPS for a long time.

I'm unlikely to post further on this thread.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineb2319 From China, joined Jan 2013, 145 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 11352 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 1):
Why are we still debating ETOPS? Its *proven* safe.

Possibly the airline industry's equivalent of the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine?

I'm not going to look by, either.

Move along, folks, nothing to see here.....

B-2319


User currently offlinetonystan From Ireland, joined Jan 2006, 1412 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 11222 times:

ETOPS has been around over 20 years. Does it seriously need validating at this stage?


My views are my own and do not reflect any other person or organisation.
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8372 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 11114 times:

Quoting N821NW (Thread starter):
he has proof that ETOPS is a "ticking time bomb"

So are automobiles. Full of flammable liquids.

Also, the electricity inside computers can be very, very dangerous. Alternating current is very dangerous.

Hope that guy does not use automobiles or use electricity when he makes posts on the internet?


User currently offlineDeltal1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 9255 posts, RR: 14
Reply 5, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 11112 times:

Quoting N821NW (Thread starter):
ETOPS jet over a four engine one any day because in my opinion since they are ETOPS certified they are (maybe) better maintained then a quad-jet,

not really. Most of the airlines maintain the (limited) quads pretty much the same way the ETOPS fleet is done.

Quoting N821NW (Thread starter):
and for a bonus they are better for the environment.

uh... bonus for some......who gives a crap for others.  
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 1):
The added maintenance requirements that ETOPS imposed have found there way into 4 engine operations.

this.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 1):
Why are we still debating ETOPS? Its *proven* safe

and gets pulled from the airline and or airframe when it becomes unsafe. If it gets to the point of too many in flight shutdowns then the carrier can gets its ETOPS program pulled.



yep.
User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8160 posts, RR: 10
Reply 6, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 11045 times:

Quoting N821NW (Thread starter):
I was wondering what was everybody at A.net opinion on the ETOPS program.

I have no issue with ETOPS. I just hope I never find myself in a position where I have to travel between deep S.America and Australia, or between S.Africa and Australia, in a twin 


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30406 posts, RR: 84
Reply 7, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 10931 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Anything that is likely to bring down a commercial airliner with two engines is probably just as likely to bring down a commercial airliner with three, four or more engines.

User currently offlinehivue From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 1021 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 10875 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 7):
Anything that is likely to bring down a commercial airliner with two engines is probably just as likely to bring down a commercial airliner with three, four or more engines.

Except dual engine failure. 

Seriously, the only issue here is if you can't keep at least one engine on a twin producing adequate power. All other failure modes would result in either (1) safe completion of the flight or (2) a crash/serious incident no matter how many engines you have. And the statistics on engine failures in twins speak for themselves.


User currently offlineTomassjc From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 835 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 10770 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting hivue (Reply 8):
Except dual engine failure.

Yes indeed, E ngines T urning O r P eople S wimming.....

Tomas SJC



When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the Earth with your eyes turned skyward -Leonardo DaVinci
User currently offlinewarden145 From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 501 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 10645 times:

Quoting hivue (Reply 8):
Except dual engine failure.

  

Quoting Tomassjc (Reply 9):
Yes indeed, E ngines T urning O r P eople S wimming.....

  

My "signature" says it all regarding my opinion of ETOPS. My strongly-held belief is that nothing man-made is perfect, and no matter how much we try to perfect anything, we will never truly reach that point no matter what people are led to believe. Couple that with a strong preference for redundancies, and you result in an almost violent opposition to the concept of oceanic operations in twin-engine aircraft.

I know that some say that you have a greater chance of losing an engine on a four-engine aircraft than a twin. However, that's counterbalanced by the fact that you have a very small chance of losing three engines on a four-engine aircraft, which would put you in an emergency situation similar to losing one engine on a twin. Yes, air travel has gotten safer in recent years, but I don't find that justification for eliminating the redundancy factor. I also know that an independent dual-engine failure hasn't happened yet...but, as far as I'm concerned, the operative word is yet and I don't particularly want to take the chance of being on the flight when it does happen.

I know that others here will ridicule me for this post, but opinions were sought and that's my very strongly held opinion on the subject. For the record, I have gone out of my way and spent hundreds of dollars extra to take an intercontinental flight on a four-engine aircraft because I didn't want to take a chance. Fortunately, courtesy of LH's A380, there's going to be at least one four-engine flight from SFO to Europe for the foreseeable future...



ETOPS = Engine Turns Off, Passengers Swim
User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8160 posts, RR: 10
Reply 11, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 10596 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 7):
Anything that is likely to bring down a commercial airliner with two engines is probably just as likely to bring down a commercial airliner with three, four or more engines.

That's true but it wouldn't keep me from soiling my pants if I lost an engine half way between JNB and SYD. Those would be the longest 4 hours of my life 
Quoting hivue (Reply 8):
Except dual engine failure.

  
And when you lose an engine in a twin, typical procedure is to land at the nearest airport (or quad for that matter). So there really is no operational data to show the probability of a dual engine failure in a twin. On top of that the typical TPAC or TATL flight is barely ever above ETOPS 120, which I'm perfectly confortable with.


User currently offlinehivue From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 1021 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 10561 times:

Quoting airbazar (Reply 11):
So there really is no operational data to show the probability of a dual engine failure in a twin.

No "operational" data maybe, but I believe that part of the process for certifying an aircraft type for ETOPS is the manufacturer droning around the sky for hours on end on a single engine. Also, assessing the probabilities for completely unrelated dual engine failure boils down to assessing the probabilities for single engine failure.


User currently offlineXFSUgimpLB41X From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 4189 posts, RR: 37
Reply 13, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 10478 times:

Dual engine flameouts have only occurred in situations that would have taken out all of however many engines were installed on the aircraft.

That guy that started the thread on the other forum has an emotional premise where he is looking for any evidence at all to support his emotions.

Take a look at the what he posted for 777 engine out vs. the 744. He's 100% incorrect as when a 747 loses an engine they are doing exactly the same thing as the 777- and typically going to divert as close as possible.



Chicks dig winglets.
User currently offlineBoeingGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 2951 posts, RR: 7
Reply 14, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 10461 times:

Quoting Tomassjc (Reply 9):
Quoting hivue (Reply 8):
Except dual engine failure.

Yes indeed, E ngines T urning O r P eople S wimming.....

Eating Time of Pacific Sharks


Seriously, this is another sensationalist "The Sky is Falling" debate. There has NEVER been a fatal accident caused by having a twin flying an ETOPS mission. Life is a risk and this is a pretty safe one. I'll bet that same guy drives down the freeway at 70 mph talking on his cell phone.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30406 posts, RR: 84
Reply 15, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 10452 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting XFSUgimpLB41X (Reply 13):
Take a look at the what he posted for 777 engine out vs. the 744. He's 100% incorrect as when a 747 loses an engine they are doing exactly the same thing as the 777- and typically going to divert as close as possible.

Unless you are British Airways.  

British Airways 747 Flies Again On Three Engines
(by Jacobin777 Mar 4 2005 in Civil Aviation)


User currently offlineskipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 3176 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 10443 times:

Quoting warden145 (Reply 10):

I know that others here will ridicule me for this post, but opinions were sought and that's my very strongly held opinion on the subject. For the record, I have gone out of my way and spent hundreds of dollars extra to take an intercontinental flight on a four-engine aircraft because I didn't want to take a chance.

Actually the issue is you have not understood the chance you are taking. The ETOPS modern twin is no more of a risk than the remaining ageing B747s or the odd A340. It's actually absurd that with so much flight experience some people still cling to an irrational believe that four engines are safer. The accident that brought down G-YMMM at LHR would have brought down an MD11 or a Quad given the same circumstances.

You need to look closely at the numbers involved. Number of hull losses of B747 vs B777 might be a good bet.


User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3378 posts, RR: 4
Reply 17, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 10408 times:

I think it needs to be applied to ALL commercial jets regardless of engine count. It goes a long way to removing potential sources of single point failure.

User currently offlineXFSUgimpLB41X From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 4189 posts, RR: 37
Reply 18, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 10395 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 15):
Unless you are British Airways.  

British Airways 747 Flies Again On Three Engines (by Jacobin777 Mar 4 2005 in Civil Aviation)

That's why I said "typically."  



Chicks dig winglets.
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20322 posts, RR: 63
Reply 19, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 10337 times:

I didn't have a problem flying the first ETOPS flights in the 1980s, and don't have a problem now.

What I'm not so sure about is if there should be any concern regarding the ever-increasing size of the big twins, considering single-engine performance on take-off and avoiding en route terrain should an engine go out. That simply stems from not having read enough about it, except peripherally reading a few concerns about it here and there which indicate that there are already routing restrictions are in place over some areas. Nothing specific comes to mind, so please don't grill me on where restrictions currently may be, but if there are no such restrictions, I'd be happy to be updated/corrected on that point.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30406 posts, RR: 84
Reply 20, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 10337 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 17):
I think it needs to be applied to ALL commercial jets regardless of engine count. It goes a long way to removing potential sources of single point failure.

It has.  

The FAA now classifies ETOPS as ExTended OPerationS and now also applies it to three and four engine commercial airliners with the publication of Advisory Circular 120-42B.

And per an Airbus presentation to the ICAO in October 2011, EASA has LROPS (Long Range OPerations) for three and four engine commercial aircraft and the ICAO has EDTO - Extended Diversion Time Operations for commercial aircraft with two, three or four engines.


User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3378 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 10293 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 20):

It has.  

The FAA now classifies ETOPS as ExTended OPerationS and now also applies it to three and four engine commercial airliners with the publication of Advisory Circular 120-42B.

Doesn't require the special procedures for engine MX from my understanding. So one mistake by a mechanic can still leave a 4 engine plane... engineless. Also I'm uncertain if they require immediate diversion now.


User currently offlineSCL767 From Chile, joined Feb 2006, 8720 posts, RR: 5
Reply 22, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 10261 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting airbazar (Reply 6):
I just hope I never find myself in a position where I have to travel between deep S.America and Australia, or between S.Africa and Australia, in a twin

Personally, I'm looking forward to crossing the South Pacific in a twin, (B77W and/or B787-9). LATAM will be operating twins between South America and AKL/SYD relatively soon as the company has decided to phase out the last two A343s in the fleet during 2014 instead of during 2015...



SCL-EZE on CC-BBF!
User currently offlineXFSUgimpLB41X From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 4189 posts, RR: 37
Reply 23, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 10125 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 19):

I didn't have a problem flying the first ETOPS flights in the 1980s, and don't have a problem now.

What I'm not so sure about is if there should be any concern regarding the ever-increasing size of the big twins, considering single-engine performance on take-off and avoiding en route terrain should an engine go out. That simply stems from not having read enough about it, except peripherally reading a few concerns about it here and there which indicate that there are already routing restrictions are in place over some areas. Nothing specific comes to mind, so please don't grill me on where restrictions currently may be, but if there are no such restrictions, I'd be happy to be updated/corrected on that point.

Calculating takeoff performance assumes losing an engine at the worst possible time and assures terrain clearance with that failure.

Flight planning also assures drift down terrain clearance in the event of an engine failure.



Chicks dig winglets.
User currently offlinecsavel From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 1362 posts, RR: 4
Reply 24, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 10061 times:

Quoting warden145 (Reply 10):
that's counterbalanced by the fact that you have a very small chance of losing three engines on a four-engine aircraft, which would put you in an emergency situation similar to losing one engine on a twin

That just doesn't seem right. If you lose 3 engines on a quad, you've lost 75% of your engine power. If you lose one engine on a twin, you've lost only 50% of your power. Yes, I know that in both situations there is only one engine left, but I'd much rather have that remaining one engine represent half of my engine power as opposed to only 1/4 of my engine power.

One can worry about a lot of things, but this seem very very low on the list.



I may be ugly. I may be an American. But don't call me an ugly American.
25 XFSUgimpLB41X : On top of this, think about the things that would cause more than one engine to fail... If you lose more than one engine, it's highly likely whatever
26 Post contains images WesternDC6B : I think using a computer to post on the internet far more practical than an automobile. As for ETOPS travel, I hardly give it a second thought. I hav
27 Post contains images Deltal1011man : If this is true I hope you never get in a car or really step outside your house. Your life is in so much more danger driving to and from the airport
28 HBGDS : It all depends what ETOPS you're talking about. It used to be 120. Now it's 180, and a goal of 240 is probably in the works. The accidents that have h
29 Post contains links Stitch : ETOPS-240 and ETOPS-330 are already in place with the A330 and 777. NZ, for example, flies their 777s via ETOPS-240 on Los Angeles - Auckland. http:/
30 Post contains links and images lightsaber : More than 3.3 million ETOPS twinjets flights have been logged since 1985. Approximately, 125 airline operators perform some 1100 ETOPS flights per da
31 DexSwart : Well, firstly, let me say, that I'm a die hard 747 fan. It's sad that I was only born on the later end of the Queen of the Sky's life. Luckily, I can
32 Post contains images Rara : Safety is always relative. Yes, one day a twin will plunge into the ocean that could have been saved by two additional engines. Is that reason enough
33 3rdGen : Can someone please give us an example in the history of twin engine jet aircraft operations in which both engines were lost due to something other tha
34 SmittyOne : If it happens over the middle of the Pacific ocean, all that those two remaining engines may do is give you more time to write your goodbye note as y
35 lightsaber : Don't get me started on vaccines. If you have a child coming, the pediatricians force the father (too late for mommy) and grandparents to go out and
36 clydenairways : A bit of a strange thread to be starting in 2013, about 30years too late. It's a bit like starting a thread about: What's your opinion on the Jet Engi
37 aaron747 : Are you referring to having sufficient rudder authority on an aircraft like the 77W when losing one engine at the worst possible time? The manufactur
38 747luvr : Can a 747 remain in cruise with 3 engines out, to divert to the nearest alternate or would it stall and fall?
39 N821NW : Well I'm no expert but I don't think a B747 would be able to stay at cruising altitude (even a twin when it looses a engine can't) but it would not "
40 Stitch : The 747 (and A340 and A380) is (are) perfectly capable of continuing to their original destination with a single engine out and they are not required
41 B777LRF : Indeed, but they won't be able to maintain altitude and thus will burn more fuel on 3 than they did on 4, as BA found to their embarrasment, incurring
42 r2rho : I have no problem with twins and I realize ETOPS is well proven and safe. And as has been said, ETOPS/LROPS standards are no longer exclusive to twins
43 BoeingGuy : TACA and Garuda 737s; Southern DC-9. Those were weather related flameouts with hail, ice and rain. Perhaps that is what you meant by "foreign debris"
44 Post contains images AeroWesty : Show-off. Hmm, more like the ability to clear terrain over the Himalayas and the Rockies, etc. I recall discussions regarding keeping altitude and ox
45 3rdGen : Sure, I am trying to get the point across that there has never been a twin engine jet that has lost both engines due to a mechanical failure. At leas
46 robsaw : I guess when all except a few of the very largest, longest-range, 4-engine airliners are out of service the ETOPS-phobic will stop flying? The psychol
47 XFSUgimpLB41X : I addressed that in my response to you. En route planning takes into consideration for engine out driftdown regardless of how many engines are instal
48 Post contains images Rara : Well, speculatively I could think of an incident where all engines are harmed by some sort of force - perhaps fuel contamination, volcanic ashes or s
49 goosebayguy : No doubt one plane will finally lose both engines but how many thousands of flights have made it without incident? The economic benefits are so great
50 twiga : Another perspective - prorating to today there would be about 6 million ETOPS twin jet flights and assuming average flight of 5 hours (guess) thats 3
51 lightsaber : I know of quads losing all 4 engines in volcanic ash. Again, it has to be something that would hurt a twin, but not all 4 of a quad. The requirement
52 XFSUgimpLB41X : In all those cases, no matter how many motors you have, they are all going to be affected. With engine out on a 2,3,4 or however many engine aircraft
53 JHwk : I'd look at it from the opposite direction; what can happen to two engines of a quad at the same time (within ETOPS rating anyway), with the airframe
54 cmf : My understanding is that most airlines will continue with one of 4 engines out. As long as they have satisfied that the failure is isolated to that e
55 Klaus : Absolutely not! This is an outright dangerous misrepresentation of safety statistics! I certainly defer to your superior knowledge of engine technolo
56 Post contains images aaron747 : Isn't this the same as admitting that the logic filter through which you are viewing this issue is inherently colored by emotion? Since when are gamb
57 Post contains images Klaus : No, this particular statement was just personal. They aren't, beyond their operational hypotheses being supported or weakened by such known outcomes.
58 aklrno : When I think of how engines fail, I worry about unconfined failures like on QF32. As stated above, the failure caused a boatload of other problems to
59 N62NA : I agree with most of what you've posted in this topic, but this was a bit puzzling to me: As it relates to ETOPS, the first generation twins were the
60 aaron747 : ETOPS was the revolutionary step operationally. These new generation airliners with incredible performance savings instead represent huge possibiliti
61 Post contains images AeroWesty : Well yes, thanks, however I didn't know it was illegal to answer the man's question which he posed to me.
62 AngMoh : It is all a matter of risk vs cost. And on a whole, the 99.99% of the population would choose the additional risk of ETOPS over the additional cost m
63 Post contains links twiga : You may well be right, but just to let you know where I was coming from. Assuming the loss of two engines is considered as a Catastrophic failure - d
64 aaron747 : I think that's a safe assumption. Looking at multivariate probability, we can't isolate just multiple engine failures as catastrophic events. Given t
65 Rara : But engines aren't either totally fine or totally gone. They can be damaged, and thus more likely to flame stop working at high power settings. When
66 Post contains images flyingturtle : My proposal: Two-engined aircraft should be regularly flown on one engine only in order to get a real sense of the dangers involved. And the only true
67 Post contains links and images lightsaber : Fly the average number of hours and your odds of dying in a plane crash are more than 100 times lower than your odds of being run over by a vehicle, a
68 Post contains links lightsaber : Odds of dying: http://www.nsc.org/news_resources/in...tics/Documents/Injury_Facts_43.pdf You are almost twice as likely to die choking on food as on a
69 Post contains images AngMoh : How many people die every year of a heart attack while travelling on planes? This is definitely not a rare event.
70 airbazar : It's not so much a question over ETOPS. In my case it's a question over the new extended ETOPS. I have no problem flying 99% of the ETOPS routes out
71 Post contains links and images Rara : Yes, but that's only because people drive far more often than they fly. If people took as many plane trips as they take car trips, aviation would be
72 Post contains links and images Rara : Wikipedia has this, on the article on the British Airways ash cloud flight: "Although the airspace around Mount Galunggung was closed temporarily aft
73 JAAlbert : I have often looked out the window at the engine on a long haul flight and marveled at its reliability. They fly 4 and 5 thousand miles at extreme tem
74 Post contains images lightsaber : I can only imagine the threads once the CS100 starts flying TATL... Twin ETOPs will grow. In particular once the 738MAX or A321NEO goes TATL. They'll
75 Opethfan : I assume you're being facetious, or I'm just dumb. The only TATL route I could think of in a CS100 is something like BA's LCY - JFK in the A318, are
76 Stratofish : Well, ETOPS IS less safe, it has NOT proven anything and it IS a ticking time bomb that WILL cost many lives in the future, period! However, there are
77 aaron747 : If you consume sausage, beef, margarine, or hydrogenated oils on a regular basis, or sleep fewer than 6 hours a night on average, you are far more li
78 Rara : I don't see why? For all intents and purposes, people should keep flying, walking, driving and eating the occasional beefsteak. It's all relatively s
79 Post contains images flyingturtle : Actually, *every* regulation improves safety. If there was a regulation that stipulates that any member of an aircrew be over 15 years old, it will i
80 AngMoh : I was specifically interested in the number of heart attaches WHILE flying... And these statistics justify ETOPS. Because the main risk is at takeoff
81 A346Dude : I'm far more worried about cabin or cargo fire than engine failure when over water. So 2 or 4 engines, doesn't really matter to me.
82 Post contains links and images lightsaber : Neither on the C-series going TATL. These are all business class configurations possibly with extra fuel in the cargo hold. Privatair will configure
83 Post contains images sweair : 4 engines 4 long haul.. Most cheesy line ever. But hey I would rather fly in the 748i than in a 77W. LH puts even less people in the 748i than EK does
84 opethfan : Thank you for an excellent and very informative response. It's greatly appreciated. I must ask, though, does the CSeries have the range for LHR-JFK?[
85 lightsaber : Now that is a reason to fly 4 engines. Room! But its only a 2-class 77W that has more people than a 3-class 748i. Now, the 748 is a far more luxuriou
86 Post contains images CXB77L : For me, ETOPS is a non-issue. I've flown across the Pacific on the 777 and hadn't given that a second thought. In fact, I deliberately chose the 777 f
87 muralir : Statistically, ETOPS has certainly proved itself safe. However, I'm concerned about the push of manufacturers to have ETOPS certification at the time
88 b2319 : It is with sadness and not ridicule that I greet this post. Part of my job is connected with risk assessment in the developing world. How sad that yo
89 Post contains images lightsaber : But the airline still has to obtain ETOPS certification. The difference is that Boeing and Airbus are now doing thousands of hours of additional flig
90 Post contains links COSPN : PA 6 had 4 engines but ditched in 1956 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_6 HNL-SFO back in those days the coast guard had a ship waiting "jus
91 Post contains images flyingturtle : Great point. Maybe there is much nostalgia involved. Speaking of me, I would rather fly in a 707 than in a 737. Quads look so "balanced". They come n
92 robsaw : Yes, and the great, black plumes of exhaust smoke behind the early jets were great too! I hope twins look balanced too; one under each wing is usuall
93 stratacruiser : Along with 744s between SFO and LHR operated by UA, BA and VS...
94 COSPN : Need to move forward in Time not back to 707 and DC-8's we need to protect the Earth also and Twins do that.
95 Klaus : Who said it did? The issue is that you can assume any singular probability to be as low as you want, but as long as it isn't zero, continued repetiti
96 robsaw : But we're comparing ETOPS vs 3, 4 or whatever-engined planes, which means that there is inevitably SOME fatal incident going to happen for ANY aircra
97 AwysBSB : Will it take too long for a manufacturer introduces to WN, U2, FR and to charter airlines a narrow-body that lets them enter the transatlantic market
98 lightsaber : About 2 years after the range was available. Current ETOPS operators (which might include WN soon...) would be much faster 'off the marks.' I was rep
99 cmf : Sorry Klaus but you are abusing statistics. It isn't relevant that statistically there will be a crash as some time. What is relevant is how frequent
100 7BOEING7 : ETOPS is NOT strictly about engine failure!!! ETOPS is about engines AND a host of other system redundancies/enhancements. Two running engines will d
101 Post contains images hivue : This is a very common misunderstanding of probability theory. ETOPS operations are designed and certified so that ETOPS flights are independent event
102 lightsaber : To some extent I agree. However, right now the procedures are ahead of the redundant propulsion units... more of twin ETOPS needs to go into quad ETO
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...
Whats Your Opinion On Winglets On The 737NGs? posted Thu Jul 24 2003 17:36:42 by Chicago757
Your Opinion On These Two Seats? posted Tue Aug 30 2005 21:44:54 by Mirrodie
Whats Your Take On The 7E7?! posted Tue Apr 27 2004 13:45:52 by B727fan
Your Opinion On Hooters Air posted Sun Apr 11 2004 13:31:08 by Lufthansa
Your Opinion On Sabena. posted Fri Jan 9 2004 22:06:33 by KLMCedric
Your Opinion On Air Canada posted Wed Jan 7 2004 07:29:25 by Mckennasmall
Your Opinion On Up And Coming Crystal Airways... posted Fri Apr 18 2003 20:04:30 by NY-JFK-LGA
Your Opinion On Kansai International posted Wed Apr 2 2003 18:12:18 by Canadian747
Your Opinion On Air Atlanta Icelandic posted Sun Nov 10 2002 16:38:40 by EAC_732
Your Opinion On PIA posted Tue Oct 8 2002 18:23:39 by Mehtabrahman