N821NW
Topic Author
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 3:32 pm

Whats Your Opinion On Etops?

Wed May 22, 2013 12:38 pm

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.
If only more people understood the pure beauty of the Airbus A320 and A330 family's...
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11735
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: Whats Your Opinion On Etops?

Wed May 22, 2013 1:33 pm

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
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
b2319
Posts: 152
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2013 10:41 am

RE: Whats Your Opinion On Etops?

Wed May 22, 2013 2:07 pm

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
 
tonystan
Posts: 1248
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:39 am

RE: Whats Your Opinion On Etops?

Wed May 22, 2013 2:53 pm

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.
 
Flighty
Posts: 7648
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: Whats Your Opinion On Etops?

Wed May 22, 2013 3:40 pm

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?
 
deltal1011man
Posts: 4540
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 9:17 am

RE: Whats Your Opinion On Etops?

Wed May 22, 2013 3:41 pm

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.
New airliners.net web site sucks.
 
airbazar
Posts: 6799
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

RE: Whats Your Opinion On Etops?

Wed May 22, 2013 3:55 pm

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 avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22931
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Whats Your Opinion On Etops?

Wed May 22, 2013 4:20 pm

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.
 
hivue
Posts: 1618
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:26 am

RE: Whats Your Opinion On Etops?

Wed May 22, 2013 4:45 pm

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.
"You're sitting. In a chair. In the SKY!!" ~ Louis C.K.
 
User avatar
Tomassjc
Posts: 694
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 6:38 pm

RE: Whats Your Opinion On Etops?

Wed May 22, 2013 5:26 pm

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
 
warden145
Posts: 539
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 8:36 am

RE: Whats Your Opinion On Etops?

Wed May 22, 2013 6:09 pm

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
 
airbazar
Posts: 6799
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

RE: Whats Your Opinion On Etops?

Wed May 22, 2013 6:25 pm

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.
 
hivue
Posts: 1618
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:26 am

RE: Whats Your Opinion On Etops?

Wed May 22, 2013 6:36 pm

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.
"You're sitting. In a chair. In the SKY!!" ~ Louis C.K.
 
XFSUgimpLB41X
Posts: 3960
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2000 1:18 am

RE: Whats Your Opinion On Etops?

Wed May 22, 2013 7:17 pm

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.
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 3917
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

RE: Whats Your Opinion On Etops?

Wed May 22, 2013 7:23 pm

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 avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22931
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Whats Your Opinion On Etops?

Wed May 22, 2013 7:27 pm

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)
 
skipness1E
Posts: 3368
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 9:18 am

RE: Whats Your Opinion On Etops?

Wed May 22, 2013 7:28 pm

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.
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2637
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: Whats Your Opinion On Etops?

Wed May 22, 2013 7:36 pm

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.
 
XFSUgimpLB41X
Posts: 3960
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2000 1:18 am

RE: Whats Your Opinion On Etops?

Wed May 22, 2013 7:39 pm

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.
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: Whats Your Opinion On Etops?

Wed May 22, 2013 7:48 pm

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 avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22931
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Whats Your Opinion On Etops?

Wed May 22, 2013 7:49 pm

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.
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2637
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: Whats Your Opinion On Etops?

Wed May 22, 2013 8:00 pm

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.
 
SCL767
Posts: 2812
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 6:25 am

RE: Whats Your Opinion On Etops?

Wed May 22, 2013 8:39 pm

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...
 
XFSUgimpLB41X
Posts: 3960
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2000 1:18 am

RE: Whats Your Opinion On Etops?

Wed May 22, 2013 9:50 pm

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.
 
csavel
Posts: 1265
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2001 9:38 pm

RE: Whats Your Opinion On Etops?

Wed May 22, 2013 10:02 pm

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.
 
XFSUgimpLB41X
Posts: 3960
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2000 1:18 am

RE: Whats Your Opinion On Etops?

Wed May 22, 2013 10:07 pm

Quoting csavel (Reply 24):
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.

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 knocked those out is going to take out all of the engines regardless of how many are installed on the aircraft.
Chicks dig winglets.
 
User avatar
WesternDC6B
Posts: 279
Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2013 3:05 pm

RE: Whats Your Opinion On Etops?

Thu May 23, 2013 2:18 am

Quoting Flighty (Reply 4):
Hope that guy does not use automobiles or use electricity when he makes posts on the internet?

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 have not traveled as much as some of you on here, but have still been over the Pacific several times, and over the Atlantic and Med on a few occasions. My main concern is with comfort (I'm a big man), and the track record of the airline. One with a history of using a forklift to take engines on and off of their DC10s - when the manual specifically said not to - is less likely to get my business than one with a superior safety record. As for the number of engines, it is only of interest to me from a technical standpoint, not of safety.

Now, a question: how many multiple engine failures have there been when on transoceanic flights? By this I mean a DC10/MD11 losing two out of three, or a 707/DC8/A340/880/990/VC10/IL62 losing 3 out of 4 engines? I am not considering the one involving, I think, an Airbus 300 where a fuel line fractured and the flight deck crew dis-believed their instruments.

In closing, if one wants engine redundancy on a transoceanic flight, nothing can beat a Dornier X.

[Edited 2013-05-22 19:29:22]
Be kind to animals - Take a grizzly to lunch today.
 
deltal1011man
Posts: 4540
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 9:17 am

RE: Whats Your Opinion On Etops?

Thu May 23, 2013 2:42 am

Quoting warden145 (Reply 10):
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.

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 than getting on a 767,777,787,330 etc flying to Europe.

There are hundreds if not thousands of ETOPS flights and I can't recall a single time in 20+ years a twin on ETOPS flights has lost both engines when a quad wouldn't have also lost all power.

And in this day in age air travel is so amazingly safe I can't honestly believe someone would go out of their way and spend a ton of extra cash to fly a quad over a twin.
But the good thing is, that is well within your rights. I use to be the same way but all the data points that twin flying is just sa safe.   
New airliners.net web site sucks.
 
HBGDS
Posts: 108
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 2:09 am

RE: Whats Your Opinion On Etops?

Thu May 23, 2013 3:19 am

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 happened to twins flying ETOPS have all been traced to issues other than the engines themselves.

Personally, I'd like a quad better, but for the past ten years, my ATL runs for biz or fun have been mostly twins, with quads the rare exception. In other words, that is not going to change.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22931
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Whats Your Opinion On Etops?

Thu May 23, 2013 3:41 am

Quoting HBGDS (Reply 28):
Now it's 180, and a goal of 240 is probably in the works.

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://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=2070

http://www.airbus.com/presscentre/pr...fied-for-etops-beyond-180-minutes/

[Edited 2013-05-22 20:43:32]
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11735
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: Whats Your Opinion On Etops?

Thu May 23, 2013 3:54 am

More than 3.3 million ETOPS twinjets flights have been logged since 1985. Approximately, 125 airline operators perform some 1100 ETOPS flights per day ? over 30,000 flights per month. Performed worldwide, it ranks among the very safest and most reliable of all flight operations.>

And that quote is from 2003!
http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2003/q4/nr_031015gq&a.html

In millions of flights, where is the issue? The quad safety rate was one crash every million flights. That set the minimum bar for ETOPs. ETOPs has done far better.

A quad adds about 12 tons of weight over a twin. Unless the aircraft is huge, there is no economic payoff.

Quoting warden145 (Reply 10):
My "signature" says it all regarding my opinion of ETOPS.

   As noted most people will not give ETOPs a second thought. You do realize most airlines are phasing out quads? So obviously your preference is rare. e.g., ANA and JAL. BA will replace most 747s with a twin (77W or other large twin) and not a quad.

The most dangerous point of your whole journey is crossing a street on the way to/from the airport.

If you want to fly quads, go for it. I'll fly the most convenient routing. You're very rare if you will pay a premium for most quads. Ok, the A380 is generating interest and I expect that to last for a bit... But partially it is the rarity of the airplane.

For quads in 2013, IIRC there will be 24 delivered A380s and 12 748s. That is it for quads (36 total airframes)
There will be 80 777s
There will be 60 787s
There will be 120 A330s
And some small number of pax 767s (delivered mostly due to 787 delays).

Or just over 7 long haul twins per quad. The 777s alone will have more seats than the quads delivered this year. Next year A330 production increases and we'll see EIS of the A350.

Have your own opinion. But look at the order backlogs

A330 (in April) at 280 per http://www.airbus.com/newsevents/new...-meet-strong-global-market-demand/

787 backlog (per all things 787): 838
A350 backlog (per wikipedia): 670
A380 backlog: 161 (per wiki)
748 backlog: 59
767 backlog; 62
777 backlog: 347 (with 1,096 delivered)

Or 8.7 twins in the backlog per quad.

And I didn't even mention narrowbody ETOPs...

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 19):

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

I met test engineers who flew the proving flights.   

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 27):
There are hundreds if not thousands of ETOPS flights and I can't recall a single time in 20+ years a twin on ETOPS flights has lost both engines when a quad wouldn't have also lost all power.

Exactly.

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 27):
And in this day in age air travel is so amazingly safe I can't honestly believe someone would go out of their way and spend a ton of extra cash to fly a quad over a twin.

   I've flown quads every time over the Atlantic, but that is because on those days the 747 had the cheapest fares... I wanted the 777, but I wasn't willing to pay a premium.

Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
User avatar
DexSwart
Posts: 608
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 11:08 am

RE: Whats Your Opinion On Etops?

Thu May 23, 2013 9:26 am

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!

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 still fly them regularly on QF between SYD and JNB and vice versa. I don't normally mind, but having done MEL - JNB on VA, I must say, it took so much longer to complete that flight due to ETOPS.

I've been subjected to 15 hours 40 minutes on a 747 flying the shortest route safely possible between SYD and JNB. I shudder to think what that would have been had that flight been on a 77W!
Durban. Melbourne. Denver. Hong Kong.
 
Rara
Posts: 2296
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 7:41 am

RE: Whats Your Opinion On Etops?

Thu May 23, 2013 9:58 am

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 to disallow ETOPS? By the time of a serious accident, how many million tons of fuel will have been saved, how many million Euros saved, how many additional passengers have flown because of lower ticket prices, how many additional routes opened - all due to ETOPS?

In aviation there are always tradeoffs. Of course you could equip every passenger with a parachute. During the next 20 years, it may even save a life or two. The result is not worth the effort! ETOPS is essentially the same. Requiring three or four engines for oceanic flights may mean a marginal safety gain, but the cost in terms of missed business opportunities is much too high to justify it.

All that said, I'd hate to be a passenger on that first ETOPS flight that dips it.  
Samson was a biblical tough guy, but his dad Samsonite was even more of a hard case.
 
User avatar
3rdGen
Posts: 276
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 7:19 pm

RE: Whats Your Opinion On Etops?

Thu May 23, 2013 10:28 am

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 than fuel starvation or ingestion of foreign debris?
لا اله الا الله محمد رسول الله
 
smittyone
Posts: 1336
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 12:55 am

RE: Whats Your Opinion On Etops?

Thu May 23, 2013 12:12 pm

Quoting warden145 (Reply 10):
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.

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 you head to the fuel-exhaustion crash site.

Quoting warden145 (Reply 10):
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.

Not true. Losing TWO engines on a quad is already much worse than losing one engine on a twin. Both would be at "50% of original power", but twins have a substantial reserve of excess power to begin with because they have to be able to takeoff, climb and fly with one engine out. AFAIK, quads are not required to be able to do all that with two engines out (somebody correct me if I'm wrong).

So in general I don't disagree with the concept of 'redundancy', but suggest that you're just not getting as much of it as you think with four engines vs. two.

Here's some more food for thought...

Would the QANTAS A380 that had the uncontained engine failure have made it home with TWO of her engines failing that catastrophically? The answer to that is debatable, but the question tells me that the issue of safety of oceanic flight vs. number of engines is a bit more complex than more = better.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11735
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: Whats Your Opinion On Etops?

Thu May 23, 2013 1:49 pm

Quoting b2319 (Reply 2):
Possibly the airline industry's equivalent of the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine?

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 get re-vaccinated as that is the only way to stop MMR and Pertussis. Then again, I live in LA where all but mumps is endemic because so many people are un-vaccinated. (Let's not forget we vaccinate Rubella for what it does to unborn children... Its otherwise a minor illness.)

Quoting Rara (Reply 32):
All that said, I'd hate to be a passenger on that first ETOPS flight that dips it.

But what case would happen that wouldn't have put a quad down? That is the point the pro-quad crowd is ignoring! The *only* case I think of we can argue is there was a mechanic who decided to replace all the oil filters on an A330 at once (forbidden by procedure) and he didn't seat the filters correctly. Such an incident would have happened on a quad too!

Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
Clydenairways
Posts: 1099
Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2007 8:27 am

RE: Whats Your Opinion On Etops?

Thu May 23, 2013 1:57 pm

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 Engine?
What's your opinion on only a two man crew?
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 8525
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

RE: Whats Your Opinion On Etops?

Thu May 23, 2013 2:27 pm

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 19):
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.

Are you referring to having sufficient rudder authority on an aircraft like the 77W when losing one engine at the worst possible time? The manufacturers have this covered with warnings to crew in the FOM and established training procedures for dealing with that specific scenario.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
747luvr
Posts: 331
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 1:39 am

RE: Whats Your Opinion On Etops?

Thu May 23, 2013 2:35 pm

Can a 747 remain in cruise with 3 engines out, to divert to the nearest alternate or would it stall and fall?
 
N821NW
Topic Author
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 3:32 pm

RE: Whats Your Opinion On Etops?

Thu May 23, 2013 2:47 pm

Quoting 747luvr (Reply 38):
Can a 747 remain in cruise with 3 engines out, to divert to the nearest alternate or would it stall and fall?

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 "stall and fall" it would just slowly drop in altitude, remember that even if a airplane lost ALL its engines it won't stall but glide down.
If only more people understood the pure beauty of the Airbus A320 and A330 family's...
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22931
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Whats Your Opinion On Etops?

Thu May 23, 2013 2:47 pm

Quoting 747luvr (Reply 38):
Can a 747 remain in cruise with 3 engines out, to divert to the nearest alternate or would it stall and fall?

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 to divert to an alternate in such a situation (though the flight crew may choose to do so).
 
B777LRF
Posts: 1422
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 4:23 am

RE: Whats Your Opinion On Etops?

Thu May 23, 2013 2:58 pm

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 the unwarrented wrath of the FAA at the same time.

I don't particularly have anything against ETOPS, but if an airline offers me a choice of aircraft on which to cross an ocean, I'll take the one with the most engines. Quads flies faster than twins too, generally speaking, making the preference even more clear.
From receips and radials over straight pipes to big fans - been there, done that, got the hearing defects to prove
 
r2rho
Posts: 2439
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:13 pm

RE: Whats Your Opinion On Etops?

Thu May 23, 2013 3:48 pm

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 - they have been extended to many quads as well, due precisely to this fact.

But having said that... I don't like the idea of ETOPS 240/330. Regardless of being on a twin or quad, or a Dornier X, and regardless of safety statistics. An engine is not "supposed" to fail, not even a single one. And when it does, it is seldom an isolated event and tends to affect other aircraft systems as well. And in such a situation, I don't like being 240+min away from the next diversion airport (itself likely in a remote area to which help will take long to arrive), no matter how many engines are on the plane.
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 3917
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

RE: Whats Your Opinion On Etops?

Thu May 23, 2013 4:21 pm

Quoting 3rdGen (Reply 33):
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 than fuel starvation or ingestion of foreign debris?

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".
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: Whats Your Opinion On Etops?

Thu May 23, 2013 4:42 pm

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 30):
Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 19):

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

I met test engineers who flew the proving flights.   

Show-off.   

Quoting aaron747 (Reply 37):
Are you referring to having sufficient rudder authority on an aircraft like the 77W when losing one engine at the worst possible time?

Hmm, more like the ability to clear terrain over the Himalayas and the Rockies, etc. I recall discussions regarding keeping altitude and oxygen issues. I peripherally understand the laws of physics, but also understand the law of diminishing returns.
International Homo of Mystery
 
User avatar
3rdGen
Posts: 276
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 7:19 pm

RE: Whats Your Opinion On Etops?

Thu May 23, 2013 4:59 pm

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 43):
Quoting 3rdGen (Reply 33):
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 than fuel starvation or ingestion of foreign debris?

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".

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 least I was not aware of an event, that's why I asked.

The point is that aircraft are built fail safe, and questioning ETOPS is just stupid, even with the most accident prone airlines/operators and in the most accident prone regions I have not heard of a dual engine failure due to a mechanical fault.

Quoting r2rho (Reply 42):
But having said that... I don't like the idea of ETOPS 240/330.

Ultimately costs rule and with the introduction of ETOPS330 I don't think that there's anywhere left on the planet that a twin cannot fly (If I'm not mistaken with 330 there might be a black spot in the Southern Pacific? or is that gone as well?) . In anycase, ETOPS180 pretty much covers most of the routes that the majority of Airlines fly and ETOPS240 and 330 are for a select few routes, mainly in the Pacific. And as I said ultimately costs rules, manufacturers are not going to build new more efficient 4 engine jets just to satisfy a tiny market in which ETOPS180 is not sufficient, and so regulators have to introduce ETOPS 240/330 in order to ensure those routes are flown. And of course these same routes cannot justify a 380/747. The A340 is the only "small" widebody that could carry the same pax as a 777 but its already obsolete.
لا اله الا الله محمد رسول الله
 
robsaw
Posts: 239
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2008 7:14 am

RE: Whats Your Opinion On Etops?

Thu May 23, 2013 5:10 pm

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 psychology of fear coupled with the lack of a rational understanding of probability and risk is an amazing thing.
 
XFSUgimpLB41X
Posts: 3960
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2000 1:18 am

RE: Whats Your Opinion On Etops?

Thu May 23, 2013 5:32 pm

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 44):
Hmm, more like the ability to clear terrain over the Himalayas and the Rockies, etc. I recall discussions regarding keeping altitude and oxygen issues. I peripherally understand the laws of physics, but also understand the law of diminishing returns.

I addressed that in my response to you. En route planning takes into consideration for engine out driftdown regardless of how many engines are installed.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 40):

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 to divert to an alternate in such a situation (though the flight crew may choose to do so).

Losing an engine is an emergency situation no matter how many are installed on the aircraft. The BA 744 out of LAX a few years ago was a rare case of attempting to continue on. They had to stop short due to the significant altitude and fuel burn penalties involved with an engine out.
Chicks dig winglets.
 
Rara
Posts: 2296
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 7:41 am

RE: Whats Your Opinion On Etops?

Thu May 23, 2013 8:10 pm

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 35):
But what case would happen that wouldn't have put a quad down?

Well, speculatively I could think of an incident where all engines are harmed by some sort of force - perhaps fuel contamination, volcanic ashes or something we can't yet think of. One engine surges and has be switched off. In such a situation, an ETOPS 330 twin would have to continue on maximum continuous thrust for more than five hours, putting enormous stress on an already damaged engine, whereas a quad could carry on relatively easy-going. If another engine fails, the twin goes down and the quad... well, doesn't go down quite as fast.  

Think of QF32. After their uncontained engine failure, they had a boatload of issues with the aircraft, including the remaining engines. I think they were bloody glad they still had three left, not just one. Now, if that had happened over the ocean somewhere..

Quoting Stitch (Reply 40):
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 to divert to an alternate in such a situation (though the flight crew may choose to do so).

I think his question was whether a quad can continue with three engines OUT, not three engines turning. While I don't know the answer, my intuition says it would probably stay afloat for a while. A missed approach would be its end though.
Samson was a biblical tough guy, but his dad Samsonite was even more of a hard case.
 
goosebayguy
Posts: 548
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 1:12 pm

RE: Whats Your Opinion On Etops?

Thu May 23, 2013 8:19 pm

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 that even if one went down nothing would change.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bw50505, CHCalfonzo, deltaflyertoo, djsflynn, Exabot [Bot], Google [Bot], guppyflyer, ikolkyo, karungguni, kbmiflyer, LGAviation, Mexicana757, Milesdependent, rotating14, Tokushima, TUSAA, Yahoo [Bot] and 267 guests