Zeus419
Topic Author
Posts: 130
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 12:04 am

B777 Stranded In Siberia Rescued By IL86 ...

Wed Dec 21, 2005 2:56 am

Quote from Tass news agency:-

http://itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?NewsID=2733067&PageNum=0


Il-86 of Aeroflot Airlines plane carries passengers of Air France defunct Boeing

18.12.2005, 16.40

IRKUTSK, December 18 (Itar-Tass) -- An Il-86 of Aeroflot Airlines carrying passengers of the Air France defunct Boeing 777 departed from Irkutsk to Moscow’s Sheremetyevo airport at 7:00 p.m. local time (2:00 p.m. Moscow time), a source in the Irkutsk airport told Itar-Tass.

Boeing 777 en route from Seoul to Paris made an emergency landing in Siberia on Saturday because of an engine malfunction, and 246 passengers had to spend the night in Irkutsk. The landing was successful, and the border and customs formalities were brief. The passengers and crewmembers were accommodated at local hotels and given food.

The Boeing 777 passengers will take an Air France plane from Sheremetyevo to Paris.

A cargo plane carrying repairmen and a new engine will come to Irkutsk on Monday to repair the Boeing 777.
 
AirbusBoeing
Posts: 52
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:14 am

RE: B777 Stranded In Siberia Rescued By IL86 ...

Wed Dec 21, 2005 3:53 am

What if it were somewhere over the Pacific or the Atlantic.....
Thats why I prefer a 747 or a 340...a 25% disability is better than a 50% disability.
 
StuckInCA
Posts: 1618
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 12:55 pm

RE: B777 Stranded In Siberia Rescued By IL86 ...

Wed Dec 21, 2005 3:56 am

RE: AF Emergency Landing IKT (by EHHO Dec 17 2005 in Civil Aviation)#ID2498400
 
hjulicher
Posts: 648
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 2:26 pm

RE: B777 Stranded In Siberia Rescued By IL86 ...

Wed Dec 21, 2005 3:59 am

I was just thinking about this, but wouldn't it have been smart of aeroflot to showcase one of it's new products for these passengers. I understand that this flight was unexpected, but I would have thought, that this would have been great way to show how their image is changing. Why couldn't they have used an Il-96 with the new paint scheme. I don't know if the IL-86's are painted with the new scheme. By flying the premium airfrance passengers on one of thier newer aircraft, wouldn't this be a great to show how much they have improved? I don't know, it just seems like the perfect oportunity to show and compare your product, especially when compared to the world-recognized one of AF's? I've been in those IL-86's, and I know that they may scare the average westerner/first worlder, because the seats fold foward when not in use. I'm sure that that was probably one of the first times those passengers have flown on a russian jetliner.
LH 442
 
Devil505x
Posts: 220
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 3:55 am

RE: B777 Stranded In Siberia Rescued By IL86 ...

Wed Dec 21, 2005 4:00 am

Quoting Zeus419 (Thread starter):
because of an engine malfunction

Has there been a few of these with the 777 lately?

Quoting AirbusBoeing (Reply 1):
Thats why I prefer a 747 or a 340

Me too! And I also feel even three engines are better than two.
 
airxliban
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2003 12:14 pm

RE: B777 Stranded In Siberia Rescued By IL86 ...

Wed Dec 21, 2005 4:07 am

Quoting AirbusBoeing (Reply 1):
Thats why I prefer a 747 or a 340...a 25% disability is better than a 50% disability.

Yeah but wouldn't you prefer an X% chance of an engine going out versus a Y% chance of an engnie going out, where Y>X?
PARIS, FRANCE...THE BEIRUT OF EUROPE.
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8538
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: B777 Stranded In Siberia Rescued By IL86 ...

Wed Dec 21, 2005 4:08 am

Quoting Zeus419 (Thread starter):
Boeing 777 en route from Seoul to Paris made an emergency landing in Siberia on Saturday because of an engine malfunction, and 246 passengers had to spend the night in Irkutsk.

So it isn't just a square in Risk after all...  Wink

Quoting AirbusBoeing (Reply 1):
What if it were somewhere over the Pacific or the Atlantic.....

Then it would have diverted in full compliance with ETOPS procedure.

Quoting Devil505x (Reply 4):
Has there been a few of these with the 777 lately?

No more so than any other type. Twinjets statistically arrive at their intended destination more often than quads.
 
Aviastar
Posts: 263
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2000 4:57 am

RE: B777 Stranded In Siberia Rescued By IL86 ...

Wed Dec 21, 2005 4:16 am

Quoting Hjulicher (Reply 3):
I was just thinking about this, but wouldn't it have been smart of aeroflot to showcase one of it's new products for these passengers. I understand that this flight was unexpected, but I would have thought, that this would have been great way to show how their image is changing. Why couldn't they have used an Il-96 with the new paint scheme.

There were 246 on board the AF 777, and the only SU plane which can transport 246 people is the Il-86. Aeroflot Il-96-300 can carry around 235 people I believe.
No Il-86 were painted with the new livery yet, unfortunately.
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: B777 Stranded In Siberia Rescued By IL86 ...

Wed Dec 21, 2005 4:27 am

the only thing this poster/thread starter is trying to do is start a flame war....his previous thread was deleted .....
"Up the Irons!"
 
birdbrainz
Posts: 422
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 6:57 am

RE: B777 Stranded In Siberia Rescued By IL86 ...

Wed Dec 21, 2005 4:29 am

Quoting AirbusBoeing (Reply 1):
What if it were somewhere over the Pacific or the Atlantic.....

It would have to diverted to its ETOPS alternate. Nowhere in the story did it say how far away Irkutsk was whe the indicent occured, or if there was any question about making it to a suitible alternate.

For instance, there was no quote from the crew (or anyone else) like, "we sure were lucky that Irkutsk was right underneath us because this plane was going down fast. If we were over the ocean, we would surely have gone swimming."

Also, it doesn't say why they shut the engine down. Most of the time, it's something like an accessory or low oil level/pressure. It is very prudunt in these cases to shut the engine down, but not strictly necessary. Had they needed two engines to avoid a crash, they probably would have had them.

With regards to in-flight shutdown rates, the last numbers I'd seen (which are about 10 yr old) were 0.053/1000 hr for a PW4000, and 0.008/1000 hr for a CFM56. I'm confident the GE90 is in the same league. Not too shabby if you ask me...
A good landing is one you can walk away from. A great landing is if the aircraft can be flown again.
 
aircanl1011
Posts: 259
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 3:38 am

RE: B777 Stranded In Siberia Rescued By IL86 ...

Wed Dec 21, 2005 4:32 am

Quoting AirbusBoeing (Reply 1):
What if it were somewhere over the Pacific or the Atlantic.....
Thats why I prefer a 747 or a 340...a 25% disability is better than a 50% disability.

Ignorance is Bliss
CYMRU AM BYTH / WALES FOREVER
 
col
Posts: 1692
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 2:11 am

RE: B777 Stranded In Siberia Rescued By IL86 ...

Wed Dec 21, 2005 4:34 am

Even 4 engined aircraft with one engine failure have to divert, ask BA. The thread is rather funny, I guess all the 777 operators will be rushing to replace them with IL86's now. Big grin
 
afay1
Posts: 1206
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2001 2:37 pm

RE: B777 Stranded In Siberia Rescued By IL86 ...

Wed Dec 21, 2005 4:57 am

It is my understanding that all of the Aeroflot IL-86's are in charter configuration; some having a small business class and some having none. I have been on several varieties and they were in all different configs, but all looked and felt well maintained. Not exactly a 777 however.
 
rjpieces
Posts: 6849
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 8:58 am

RE: B777 Stranded In Siberia Rescued By IL86 ...

Wed Dec 21, 2005 5:06 am

Quoting AirbusBoeing (Reply 1):
Thats why I prefer a 747 or a 340...a 25% disability is better than a 50% disability.

Except ETOPS planes are much less likely to have an engine disabled.
"Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon"
 
BoomBoom
Posts: 2459
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:26 am

RE: B777 Stranded In Siberia Rescued By IL86 ...

Wed Dec 21, 2005 5:13 am

Quoting Zeus419 (Thread starter):
passengers of the Air France defunct Boeing 777 departed from Irkutsk to Moscow�s Sheremetyevo airport

Funny choice of words: "defunct".

Defunct means having ceased to exist. The flight was defunct, but not the 777.
Our eyes are open, our eyes are open--wide, wide, wide...
 
AMSSFO
Posts: 912
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:42 am

RE: B777 Stranded In Siberia Rescued By IL86 ...

Wed Dec 21, 2005 5:22 am

Quoting Birdbrainz (Reply 9):
Nowhere in the story did it say how far away Irkutsk was whe the indicent occured,

1000 km north of IKT acc to Itar Tass
http://news.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=:...32489%26PageNum%3D0&cid=1103031446
"Boeing-777 was on its way from Seoul to Paris when one of its engines failed. The accident occurred over the Russian territory approximately 1,000 km to the north of Irkutsk. Irkutsk is the only international airport in the area which has technical parameters to accept planes like Boeings with so many passengers onboard. "
also:
"According to clarified reports, 246 Air France passengers spent the night in the two best hotels in Irkutsk - Baikal-Hotel and Angara." Isn't that nice  Wink?
 
don81603
Posts: 1105
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 12:07 am

RE: B777 Stranded In Siberia Rescued By IL86 ...

Wed Dec 21, 2005 5:43 am

I would think that if push came to shove, the 777 would have been able to continue on a single engine, would it not? Granted ETOPS says they'd have to divert, but for the sake of argument, lets toss ETOPS out the window. Would the single remaining engine have enough power to have continued? Wouldn't it be "common sense" to design extra performance into the engines in the event that the worst case scenario came along?
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
 
KLM685
Posts: 1506
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 12:41 pm

RE: B777 Stranded In Siberia Rescued By IL86 ...

Wed Dec 21, 2005 7:07 am

Quoting AirxLiban (Reply 5):
Yeah but wouldn't you prefer an X% chance of an engine going out versus a Y% chance of an engnie going out, where Y>X?

Did you studied economics?  Wink
KLM- The Best Airline in the World!
 
netdhaka
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2004 2:13 am

RE: B777 Stranded In Siberia Rescued By IL86 ...

Wed Dec 21, 2005 7:24 am

I think if it was a 4 engine plane, they could have continued to their destination. Few months back I heard BA 747 flying from LAX to LHR with one engine down. This happened on more than one occasion (not on the same route may be).
 
Transtar
Posts: 437
Joined: Sat Jul 03, 1999 5:51 am

RE: B777 Stranded In Siberia Rescued By IL86 ...

Wed Dec 21, 2005 7:28 am

I believe that the Il-96-300 fleet has been grounded due to serious technical problems discovered with President Putin's private aircraft.

At least that was the case a few weeks ago.

Any comments?
 
PanAm747LHR
Posts: 174
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 12:58 pm

RE: B777 Stranded In Siberia Rescued By IL86 ...

Wed Dec 21, 2005 7:30 am

Quoting Hjulicher (Reply 3):
I was just thinking about this, but wouldn't it have been smart of aeroflot to showcase one of it's new products for these passengers. I understand that this flight was unexpected, but I would have thought, that this would have been great way to show how their image is changing. Why couldn't they have used an Il-96 with the new paint scheme. I don't know if the IL-86's are painted with the new scheme. By flying the premium airfrance passengers on one of thier newer aircraft, wouldn't this be a great to show how much they have improved?

The whole point of this post is that it was an emergency. The object here would have been to get these passengers on their way as soon as possible, not turn it into a publicity event for SU. I'm sure that if SU had a better aircraft readily available they would have used it, however the IL-86 was a) available and b) capable of carrying out the task necessary, so that's what they used. Furthermore, while the IL-96 may well be painted in the new scheme, the product onboard doesn't quite compare to the AF 777 product, so there wouldn't have been much to show-off to the stranded AF passengers. Having just been delayed for more than 12 hours, the passengers wouldn't have been in a very receptive mood even if this were the case - they were all just interested in getting on their way and completing their journey.

I'm glad to hear that everyone was ok and that there were no injuries or casualties.

Happy Holidays everyone!

Nick
 
atnight
Posts: 537
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 8:06 am

RE: B777 Stranded In Siberia Rescued By IL86 ...

Wed Dec 21, 2005 7:31 am

Seems most support this idea...

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 6):
No more so than any other type. Twinjets statistically arrive at their intended destination more often than quads.



Quoting RJpieces (Reply 13):
Except ETOPS planes are much less likely to have an engine disabled.

Now, do you guys have a statistic to support your view? It seems you're just saying what you think, and not what theoretically can happen... how can twins (2 engines) are less likely to have their engines disabled than a quad (4 engines)? In paper, there is 50% vs 25%, unless the quads' engines are crap and the twins are "unbreakable".... really, all of those who support the idea that a twin is less likely to brake down than a quad is absurd... that "statistics" show otherwise, you have to show me to believe it, and even if such statistic is available (yet to see it), you need to consider the average age of most widebody twins against the average age of the widebody quads, since most twin widebodies are a LOT newer than most quads (B747s & A340s)... and also, the engines themselves on most widebody twins are newer, thus better and more technologically advanced than each engine of the older quads... neverhtheless, for two new airplanes, a quad and a twin, the chances of the quad holding its power is a lot greater than on a twin.... and that's the statistic that counts....
B707 B727 B733/5/7/8/9 B742/4 B752/3 B763/4 B772 A310 A318/319/320 A332 A343 MD80 DC9/10 CRJ200 ERJ145 ERJ-170 Be1900 Da
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: B777 Stranded In Siberia Rescued By IL86 ...

Wed Dec 21, 2005 7:32 am

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 14):
Funny choice of words: "defunct".

Defunct means having ceased to exist. The flight was defunct, but not the 777.

this thread starter was bashing the 777/Twin concept, that is why his previous thread was deleted...
"Up the Irons!"
 
goCOgo
Posts: 680
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 11:24 am

RE: B777 Stranded In Siberia Rescued By IL86 ...

Wed Dec 21, 2005 7:47 am

Quoting Netdhaka (Reply 18):
I think if it was a 4 engine plane, they could have continued to their destination. Few months back I heard BA 747 flying from LAX to LHR with one engine down.

Too bad it didn't make LHR. Had to divert anyway (to MAN, I think), although they tried to make it. Most of the time, a 4-engine jet that loses an engine diverts also. The BA jet, it would seem, only tried to make it due to that EU flight delay law. 4 engines is just more that can go wrong.
"Why you fly is your business, how you fly is ours"
 
afay1
Posts: 1206
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2001 2:37 pm

RE: B777 Stranded In Siberia Rescued By IL86 ...

Wed Dec 21, 2005 7:48 am

The IL-96 was un-grounded awhile ago. Do a search....

Anyway, do all the IL-96's in SU's fleet now have beds installed in business/first?
 
TinkerBelle
Posts: 1436
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 7:46 am

RE: B777 Stranded In Siberia Rescued By IL86 ...

Wed Dec 21, 2005 7:54 am

Quoting Netdhaka (Reply 18):
I think if it was a 4 engine plane, they could have continued to their destination. Few months back I heard BA 747 flying from LAX to LHR with one engine down. This happened on more than one occasion (not on the same route may be).

Here's a blog about that story;
http://groups.google.com/group/borla...d115?sa=X&oi=groupsr&start=0&num=3
If you are going through hell, keep going.
 
TinkerBelle
Posts: 1436
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 7:46 am

RE: B777 Stranded In Siberia Rescued By IL86 ...

Wed Dec 21, 2005 7:58 am

Quoting TinkerBelle (Reply 25):
TinkerBelle

To add to the above note, the same aircraft flew SIN-LHR (I think it was) about 4 days later after this happened. I wonder if BA ever figured out what was the cause of the engine failures.
If you are going through hell, keep going.
 
LCH
Posts: 47
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 1:19 am

RE: B777 Stranded In Siberia Rescued By IL86 ...

Wed Dec 21, 2005 8:07 am

Wow, reading that press release took me back some 20 years. Sounds like perfect propaganda for the Soviet aviation industry; 246 westeners "rescued" by Soviet airliner after their decadent American Boeing broke down and had to land in Siberia.  Wink
 
atnight
Posts: 537
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 8:06 am

RE: B777 Stranded In Siberia Rescued By IL86 ...

Wed Dec 21, 2005 8:14 am

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 8):
the only thing this poster/thread starter is trying to do is start a flame war....his previous thread was deleted .....



Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 22):
this thread starter was bashing the 777/Twin concept, that is why his previous thread was deleted...

I don't know why you mentioned that twice.... Do you have a personal issue with Zeus419? Why do you refer to him as the "thread starter"? And why do you have to mention his previous problem twice? I didn't need to know that, we are not talking about what "he said", but what happened to a AF 777.... focuse on the discussion and not in your personal battles.... As far as I can see from your two posts, you are the one wanting to start a flame war with this guy and in his post.... the best thing you can do with someone who you don't like or don't agree how he talks about a particular aircraft, is to ignore him or to put substancial evidence that what he says is false.... Please, do us all a favor and stay on course about the current discussion...

Anyways, back to the discussion, anyone has the idea why AF had to pay Aeroflot to go and get the passengers instead of them sending their own plane?
B707 B727 B733/5/7/8/9 B742/4 B752/3 B763/4 B772 A310 A318/319/320 A332 A343 MD80 DC9/10 CRJ200 ERJ145 ERJ-170 Be1900 Da
 
User avatar
garpd
Posts: 2308
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 9:29 am

RE: B777 Stranded In Siberia Rescued By IL86 ...

Wed Dec 21, 2005 8:16 am

Quoting Atnight (Reply 21):
Now, do you guys have a statistic to support your view? It seems you're just saying what you think, and not what theoretically can happen... how can twins (2 engines) are less likely to have their engines disabled than a quad (4 engines)? In paper, there is 50% vs 25%, unless the quads' engines are crap and the twins are "unbreakable".... really, all of those who support the idea that a twin is less likely to brake down than a quad is absurd... that "statistics" show otherwise, you have to show me to believe it, and even if such statistic is available (yet to see it), you need to consider the average age of most widebody twins against the average age of the widebody quads, since most twin widebodies are a LOT newer than most quads (B747s & A340s)... and also, the engines themselves on most widebody twins are newer, thus better and more technologically advanced than each engine of the older quads... neverhtheless, for two new airplanes, a quad and a twin, the chances of the quad holding its power is a lot greater than on a twin.... and that's the statistic that counts....

Whats absurd my dear fellow forumite is your ignorance.

It is fact that ETOPS aicraft such as the 777 must under go stringent evaluation and must be maintained to the highest standard for ETOPS and continuously re-evaluated. A lot of attention is lavished on the engines for this very reason. This makes an ETOPS aircraft statistically less likely to suffer an engine failure.

Quads on the other hand have no such high requirements and are simply maintained a a "standard" rate (I'm simplifying it, I know).

Did you know, you stand a higher chance of surviving an inlight fire on an ETOPS classified twin than you are on you bog standard quad?
This is because the ETOPS classified twin must demonstrate a higher fire containmant ability due to the nature of ETOPS, where as a quad doesn't.

Just a little tidbit to show you how stupid your post was, especialy calling the input from highly respected members of this forum absurd.
arpdesign.wordpress.com
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: B777 Stranded In Siberia Rescued By IL86 ...

Wed Dec 21, 2005 8:25 am

Quoting Atnight (Reply 21):
all of those who support the idea that a twin is less likely to brake down than a quad is absurd... that "statistics" show otherwise, you have to show me to believe it

Its more simple than you think.

If you have twice as many of something, the liklihood of one of those things failing is twice as high. Its really very elementary statistics.

It works the other way, too, of course. If I buy 4 lottery tickets, I'm twice as likely to win as if I only have 2.

N
 
pictues
Posts: 174
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 11:41 am

RE: B777 Stranded In Siberia Rescued By IL86 ...

Wed Dec 21, 2005 8:32 am

Quoting Col (Reply 11):
Even 4 engined aircraft with one engine failure have to divert, ask BA. The thread is rather funny, I guess all the 777 operators will be rushing to replace them with IL86's now. Big grin

No they don't that incident only became news because they couldnt reach Heathrow. I've seen a CX A340-600 that had an owl go through the engine and it continued onto HKG from YVR with 3 engines.
 
Stratofortress
Posts: 146
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 8:16 am

RE: B777 Stranded In Siberia Rescued By IL86 ...

Wed Dec 21, 2005 8:34 am

AtNight

Assuming that a twin and a quad have identical engines, and that either aircraft must divert if only ONE of its engines goes out, then quad is twice as likely to have to divert.

On top of this, as GARPD pointed out, ETOPS aircraft must meet stricter standards.

BTW: Just joined the forum. Been reading for years though. Best website on the net.
Forever New Frontiers
 
birdbrainz
Posts: 422
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 6:57 am

RE: B777 Stranded In Siberia Rescued By IL86 ...

Wed Dec 21, 2005 8:38 am

While we're beating this one up, here's another angle on the two- versus four-engine debate:

In general, the crew of a four-engine aircraft is more likely to shut an engine down for strictly precautionary reasons (i.e. low oil level) than the crew of a two engined plane. The reason is simple: depending on where they are, they may not need to divert, and given that damaged engines are expensive, why take the chance?

In the 1990s, UA put out a letter to it's 744 crews advising them to avoid shutting down engines unless absolutely necessary. The reason is that precautionary IFSDs on the PW4000 powered 744s were starting to screw up the ETOPS statistics for UA's 763s, and the company didn't want those numbers to be skewed by IFSDs that weren't necessary. For this reason, IFSDs on twins and 4-holers are hard to compare.

One more thing: for those so nervous about twins, remember this: if a 744 loses one engine, decides to keep going, and then loses a second, there's no missed approch option (unless maybe the plane is really light). However, a 777 on one engine can execute a missed approach.

Bottom line: All of this is much ado about nothing. They're both fine. In fact, I even think crossing the ocean (with fuel stops) in a single-engined Pilatus PC-12 would be really cool. Hell, even Steve Fawcett's Global Flyer had only one engine.
A good landing is one you can walk away from. A great landing is if the aircraft can be flown again.
 
widebodyphotog
Posts: 885
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 1999 9:23 am

RE: B777 Stranded In Siberia Rescued By IL86 ...

Wed Dec 21, 2005 8:44 am

Quoting Atnight (Reply 21):
how can twins (2 engines) are less likely to have their engines disabled than a quad (4 engines)? In paper, there is 50% vs 25%, unless the quads' engines are crap and the twins are "unbreakable".... really, all of those who support the idea that a twin is less likely to brake down than a quad is absurd... that "statistics" show otherwise, you have to show me to believe it, and even if such statistic is available (yet to see it), you need to consider the average age of most widebody twins against the average age of the widebody quads, since most twin widebodies are a LOT newer than most quads (B747s & A340s)... and also, the engines themselves on most widebody twins are newer, thus better and more technologically advanced than each engine of the older quads... neverhtheless, for two new airplanes, a quad and a twin, the chances of the quad holding its power is a lot greater than on a twin.... and that's the statistic that counts....

By virtue of having fewer engines there is a lower likelihood of a single engine failure. Having more engines on an airframe means more total engine operating hours relative to the same flight hours operated with an aircraft with fewer engines. If your pool of engines has a failure rate of .005/1,000 hours of operation and you operate a four engined aircraft for 400,000 hours that is 400,000 hours X 4 = 1,600,000 total engine hours /1,000 X .005 = 8 failures during that period. For a two engined aircraft over the same period the engine hours are exactly half and the total number of failures is half. That's the simplified statistics, and in reality ETOPS twins have performed better than the statistical prediction. In nearly 84,000,000 ETOPS hours flown there have been 80 or so engine failure events, no loss of life, and no hull loss related to engine failure during the ETOPS portion of flight. And ETOPS aircraft are busily racking up more than 1,000h a day...

The single issue of IFSD, quad vs twin has been debated to death and the reliability winner will always be the ETOPS twin. ETOPS engines are simply more reliable by virtue of design and maintenance requirements as evidenced by many carriers maintaining entire fleets of aircraft to ETOPS standards regardless of the number of engines per airframe. The benefits of ETOPS reliability is heavily weighted towards avoiding IFSD in the first place, and reducing the chances of catastrophic loss of aircraft due to a single IFSD event. Diversion protocol, system redundancy, and pilot training are active measures against the most important goal during an IFSD, which is not losing the aircraft...

Relative to four engine aircraft twins have lower engine out ceilings and diversion circles regulated by planning rules. Four engine aircraft can fly higher and have basically unregulated diversion circles in the event of an IFSD. This of course gives four engined aircraft greater flexibility in the case of a single IFSD but does not reduce the possibility of engine failure at all. Prudent evaluation of four vs twin engine aircraft would suggest that the substantial benefits of lower fuel burn, higher reliability and safety of twins have outweighed the virtues of operational flexibility in the unlikely event of a single engine failure. ETOPS reduces failures and diversions while having more engines allows you to be more flexible where you land in a diversion but increases the likelihood of an engine failure causing a diversion...

One only needs to look to the skies to see evidence of what the facts are. Across the Atlantic and North Pacific the majority of passenger aircraft crossings are now made by ETOPS twins. Soon ETOPS twins will dominate the South Pacific crossings as well, with their characteristic safe and efficient operations.



-widebodyphotog
If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do
 
Superfly
Posts: 37735
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: B777 Stranded In Siberia Rescued By IL86 ...

Wed Dec 21, 2005 8:45 am

That is a cool story.
Going from a 777 to an IL-86.  Cool
Bring back the Concorde
 
Fyano773
Posts: 536
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 11:03 am

RE: B777 Stranded In Siberia Rescued By IL86 ...

Wed Dec 21, 2005 9:14 am

Atnight,

As a.netters have stated:

Quoting AirxLiban (Reply 5):
Yeah but wouldn't you prefer an X% chance of an engine going out versus a Y% chance of an engnie going out, where Y>X?



Quoting GARPD (Reply 29):
This makes an ETOPS aircraft statistically less likely to suffer an engine failure.



Quoting Gigneil (Reply 30):
It works the other way, too, of course. If I buy 4 lottery tickets, I'm twice as likely to win as if I only have 2.



Quoting Stratofortress (Reply 32):
Assuming that a twin and a quad have identical engines, and that either aircraft must divert if only ONE of its engines goes out, then quad is twice as likely to have to divert.

You have in the quad, 4 possible points of failure versus 2 in the twin...

BTW, welcome to the forum.

Fyano
 
Superfly
Posts: 37735
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: B777 Stranded In Siberia Rescued By IL86 ...

Wed Dec 21, 2005 9:36 am

Screw the twins!
You can't get awesome shots like this in a 777 or A330.




View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Nils Alegren
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © James Scott




View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Sam Chui
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Andrew Povey




View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Howard Chaloner
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Frédéric Renaud




View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Christian Waser
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Felix Goetting




View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ralf Gerads
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Lauri Huima

Bring back the Concorde
 
atnight
Posts: 537
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 8:06 am

RE: B777 Stranded In Siberia Rescued By IL86 ...

Wed Dec 21, 2005 9:48 am

Quoting GARPD (Reply 29):
Just a little tidbit to show you how stupid your post was, especialy calling the input from highly respected members of this forum absurd.

Thank you much for your great "enlightment" oh great GARPD!!! seriously, your shouldn't call my post stupid, especially because I did ask for some proof to let me know why a twin is better.... and just on the note, you are mentioning ETOPS twins, but there are many twins which are not ETOPS... So how safe and reliable are the non-ETOPS twins? same as the quads or not? or are you stating that also the non-ETOPS twins have a greater degree of security than the quads? if so, show me why, because from what YOU SAID what makes the difference is the level of maintance and check up, so it would appear that any aircraft that is non-ETOPS is the same in that regard, since a non-ETOPS twin probably doesn't have to meet the "strict" rules of ETOPS that make it safer.... So, don't bash me by asking an honest question and demanding some proof of those who state that any twin is better than any quad... That is why the comment where I said it is absurd, was especifically in reference to those members who think and STATE that a TWIN is better than a QUAD without mentioning why and what TYPES!!!.... Is like saying a B737 is better than a A340 simply because is a twin... or a A330 better than B744 just cuz is a twin.... to state something like that, you must especify what you are really saying and that is why I said that a comment like that was absurd.... they didn't specify ETOPS twin.. they just stated TWIN... get it? THANK YOU!!
I stated what in my understanding seemed right and you bash me for asking? You need to read first what I said instead of getting defensive becaused I called two comments that lacked proof, absurd... Also, this forum was to ask questions, ask for proof when someone states something if one desires.. don't call me ignorant for asking... ignorant is the one who doesn't want to learn when he cans.... and just so you know, an ignorant is the one who believes he knows it all.... sorry I came across that way, I don't know it all.... do you?

Quoting Stratofortress (Reply 32):
Assuming that a twin and a quad have identical engines, and that either aircraft must divert if only ONE of its engines goes out, then quad is twice as likely to have to divert.

Well, you are wrong, a quad loosing one engine doesn't have to divert.. a twin must...

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 30):
If you have twice as many of something, the liklihood of one of those things failing is twice as high. Its really very elementary statistics

You are right, but I was thinking more in the lines of divertion rather than braking down (my mistake)... if a quad brakes one engine, no divertion needed, a twin must....

BTW, I am not a quad lover per say, as a matter of fact, I haven't flown a quad in 10 years, only twins and I really enjoy them, but it seems that most here support the idea of twins over quads, and I wanted to know how exactly a twin is better than the quad, than appearing to state that it's just better because of having 2 engines than having four....
B707 B727 B733/5/7/8/9 B742/4 B752/3 B763/4 B772 A310 A318/319/320 A332 A343 MD80 DC9/10 CRJ200 ERJ145 ERJ-170 Be1900 Da
 
StuckInCA
Posts: 1618
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 12:55 pm

RE: B777 Stranded In Siberia Rescued By IL86 ...

Wed Dec 21, 2005 9:52 am

Quoting Atnight (Reply 38):
So, don't bash me by asking an honest question and demanding some proof of those who state that any twin is better than any quad

You might find yourself better served by ASKING for proof rather than DEMANDING it. Also, you might be well served to search for one of the nearly infinite number of threads where this very topic has been well discussed over and over.
 
AirbusBoeing
Posts: 52
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:14 am

RE: B777 Stranded In Siberia Rescued By IL86 ...

Wed Dec 21, 2005 9:53 am

Quoting Fyano773 (Reply 36):
You have in the quad, 4 possible points of failure versus 2 in the twin...

agreed.....but in a twin: the 2 points of failure would be catastrophic as compared to 2 points of failure in a quad.

with one engine turned off, the BA 747 flight went all the way to MAN and LHR. In a 777, you will be landing at the nearest airport capable of handling that size of an aircraft.
 
Superfly
Posts: 37735
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: B777 Stranded In Siberia Rescued By IL86 ...

Wed Dec 21, 2005 10:02 am

Correct me if I am wrong but isn't the sole purpose of twins cost and only cost?
Yes maintaining a 4 engine will cost more and use more fuel but in terms of performance and safety, isn't the 4 engine better?

If a quad loses an engine at takeoff, it still has 75% of it's power.
If a twin loses an engine at takeoff, it has only 50% of it's power.

Isn't it true that United Airlines is hanging on to it's Bae146 to serve Aspen because the it's too risky to have a twin engined RJ serve that airport?
Bring back the Concorde
 
AMSSFO
Posts: 912
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:42 am

RE: B777 Stranded In Siberia Rescued By IL86 ...

Wed Dec 21, 2005 10:23 am

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 39):
Quoting Atnight (Reply 38):
So, don't bash me by asking an honest question and demanding some proof of those who state that any twin is better than any quad

You might find yourself better served by ASKING for proof rather than DEMANDING it. Also, you might be well served to search for one of the nearly infinite number of threads where this very topic has been well discussed over and over.

I agree completely! Reread your first post, Atnight, and you probably will notice that the tone of your post (and the others in this thread as well) is offensive. Did you have a bad day?

You're also mixing up two things. The chance of having an engine failure is not the same as the difference in consequences between a quad and twin. As extensively explained, a twin is less likely to experience an engine out (which has been even lower than than you would expect due to ETOPS). But, it is indeed true that having a failure, a twin looses 50% of its engines and a quad only 25%.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 41):
If a quad loses an engine at takeoff, it still has 75% of it's power.
If a twin loses an engine at takeoff, it has only 50% of it's power

They still have 75% resp 50% of their engines running. Residual power on the remaining engines will partly compensate for the lost thrust, particularly for the twin. The twin is still perfectly able to get airborne.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13730
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: B777 Stranded In Siberia Rescued By IL86 ...

Wed Dec 21, 2005 10:24 am

Quoting Superfly (Reply 41):
Correct me if I am wrong but isn't the sole purpose of twins cost and only cost?
Yes maintaining a 4 engine will cost more and use more fuel but in terms of performance and safety, isn't the 4 engine better?

If a quad loses an engine at takeoff, it still has 75% of it's power.
If a twin loses an engine at takeoff, it has only 50% of it's power.

Isn't it true that United Airlines is hanging on to it's Bae146 to serve Aspen because the it's too risky to have a twin engined RJ serve that airport?

okay, you are wrong.

twin engines are also more reliable, which is why they are preferred. The 777 for example has double the dispatch reliability of the 340.

Also, the odds of two engines on different wings shutting down in flight for an unrelated reason are beyond low, be it a twin or a quad. Only a systems level failure (or an attack of some debris of some kind) would cause a multiple shutdown on both sides of the jet. At that point, 2, 3, 4, 10 engines, likely wouldn't matter.

All things being equal, a twin has 1/2 the chance of a first engine out, and 1/3 the chance of a second engine out. Further, the ETOPS twin has a more reliable engine, so it's more like the twin has 1/4 the chance of a first engine out. Because the twin can take off, fly and land on one engine, have one engine out is NOT unsafe any more than a quad flying on 3. It's only that CURRENT rules don't require a quad to divert on 3. Future rules and reworking of ETOPS will require this.

Also as stated above, ETOPS requires better fire protection and prevention than a quad.

As for the overpowered BAE 146, you are attributing it's massive power to it's quadness vs. the less powerful RJ. This is false. A twin with better thrust could do it, just such twins aren't built.

Most airlines fly 757s into Eagle/Vail because of their hot/high performance. Yet it's a twin.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
BoomBoom
Posts: 2459
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:26 am

RE: B777 Stranded In Siberia Rescued By IL86 ...

Wed Dec 21, 2005 10:25 am

Quoting Superfly (Reply 37):
You can't get awesome shots like this in a 777

Ya, but you get awesome shots of those BIG honkin 777 engines.
Our eyes are open, our eyes are open--wide, wide, wide...
 
Amazonphil
Posts: 544
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2003 12:37 pm

RE: B777 Stranded In Siberia Rescued By IL86 ...

Wed Dec 21, 2005 10:25 am

Quoting Don81603 (Reply 16):
would think that if push came to shove, the 777 would have been able to continue on a single engine, would it not? Granted ETOPS says they'd have to divert, but for the sake of argument, lets toss ETOPS out the window. Would the single remaining engine have enough power to have continued? Wouldn't it be "common sense" to design extra performance into the engines in the event that the worst case scenario came along?

THe 777 is 180 minute rated so of coarse it could have probably gone anywhere the captain would have chose to go and land....not a prob for the 777, one engine has more than enough, were designed that way.
If it ain't Boeing, I ain't goeing!
 
mham001
Posts: 4179
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 4:52 am

RE: B777 Stranded In Siberia Rescued By IL86 ...

Wed Dec 21, 2005 10:30 am

Quoting Superfly (Reply 41):
If a quad loses an engine at takeoff, it still has 75% of it's power.
If a twin loses an engine at takeoff, it has only 50% of it's power.

True, but the twin is overpowered to start with to make up the difference. Thats why the A346 can have hair dryers in its wings.
 
vv701
Posts: 5773
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:54 am

RE: B777 Stranded In Siberia Rescued By IL86 ...

Wed Dec 21, 2005 10:59 am

Quoting Hjulicher (Reply 3):
Why couldn't they have used an Il-96 with the new paint scheme.

Although most a-netters would be interested in the paint scheme of an aircraft they were boarding remember that:

The passengers almost certainly were not a-nutters - sorry - a-netters.
The passengers had spent 24 hours in Siberia in the middle of winter.
The passengers boarded the Il-86 at 7pm in Siberia in the middle of winter
The passengers arrived in Moscow in the middle of a dark winter's night
The passengers were probably more than pleased to be out of Irkutsk and on their way to Paris

Under these circumstances I do not suppose even one of them noted the aircraft's paint scheme.
 
gearup
Posts: 514
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2000 9:23 am

RE: B777 Stranded In Siberia Rescued By IL86 ...

Wed Dec 21, 2005 11:45 am

Quoting GARPD (Reply 29):
Just a little tidbit to show you how stupid your post was, especialy calling the input from highly respected members of this forum absurd.

There was nothing stupid about his post at all. GARPD why do you have to be so confrontational? If someone thinks the claims for ETOPS are absurd, so what? Just demonstrate the facts to him/her and explain the concepts and statistics of ETOPS and you might influence him/her to rethink it or even change their mind. You don't have to be such an ignoramus about it.

GU
I have no memory of this place.
 
TinkerBelle
Posts: 1436
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 7:46 am

RE: B777 Stranded In Siberia Rescued By IL86 ...

Wed Dec 21, 2005 11:47 am

Quoting Atnight (Reply 38):
Thank you much for your great "enlightment" oh great GARPD!!! seriously, your shouldn't call my post stupid, especially because I did ask for some proof to let me know why a twin is better....

Chill out dude..... All GARPD did was 'enlighten' you like you asked to be so posting a 300-word paragraph whining and whining is a little out of whack. To put it like Mariner would, take a prozac and lie down...that might help.
If you are going through hell, keep going.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Adipasquale, Baidu [Spider], Bing [Bot], Bluebird191, Clipper002, cougar15, FlyCaledonian, gkirk, loj, mhae, OA940, oslmgm, overcast, qf789, Ronnoc, seahawk, speedbored, StTim, SuperSix2, WIederling and 260 guests