gaut
Posts: 436
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2001 10:57 am

Boeing Seeks ETOPS240

Sun Jun 24, 2001 12:06 am

Boeing is pushing to have its B777 cleared for at least 240min extended twin-engines operations (ETOPS).
I know the B777 is a very reliable aircraft and I don't have problem with ETOPS regulation but I think 4 h flying on only one engine is too much. Imagine flying over the ocean during 4h on only one engine!
What are your thought about that?

Gaut
«Horum omnium fortissimi sunt Belgae.»
 
B747-437B
Posts: 8777
Joined: Thu May 30, 2002 6:54 am

RE: Boeing Seeks ETOPS240

Sun Jun 24, 2001 12:11 am

ETOPS240 is a technicality, since ETOPS207 will open up pretty much every route in the world for twins. However, ETOPS240 will allow Boeing to withdraw subsidies to diversion airports.
"The A340-300 may boast a long range, but the A340 is underpowered" -- Robert Milton, CEO - Air Canada
 
MD-11 forever
Posts: 550
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:15 am

RE: Boeing Seeks ETOPS240

Sun Jun 24, 2001 12:12 am

Gaut,

I agree with you. But I can already hear those claiming that on a four engined jet it is double as likely to loose an engine..... But I prefer to have four or at least three for a trip that would require the ETOPS 240 limit....
 
Joni
Posts: 2613
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 11:05 pm

RE: Boeing Seeks ETOPS240

Sun Jun 24, 2001 12:13 am


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

 
gaut
Posts: 436
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2001 10:57 am

RE: Boeing Seeks ETOPS240

Sun Jun 24, 2001 12:16 am

Joni,

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

Gaut
«Horum omnium fortissimi sunt Belgae.»
 
B747-437B
Posts: 8777
Joined: Thu May 30, 2002 6:54 am

RE: Boeing Seeks ETOPS240

Sun Jun 24, 2001 12:25 am

Joni - which "authorities" are you referring to?
"The A340-300 may boast a long range, but the A340 is underpowered" -- Robert Milton, CEO - Air Canada
 
Guest

RE: Joni

Sun Jun 24, 2001 12:55 am

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

Maybe the imaginary "anti-Boeing" authorities?
 
BlatantEcho
Posts: 1815
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2000 10:11 am

RE: Joni

Sun Jun 24, 2001 1:07 am

Four hours on one engine.......jeezus, Cessnas can fly that long. What about the Pilatus?? I'm at the point, where I simply get tired of the one engine thing. So what?? One engine will get you where you are going, even on a twin, ETOPS wouldn't be in place if it didn't. Give me a twin over a 4 holer anyday, especially over the Pacific. That at least halves my chances that an uncontainted engine failure could destroy or severly damage the plane and force it down in the ocean.

Four hours on one engine is old hat.

My $.02, respectfully of course,
BlatantEcho
They're not handing trophies out today
 
DeltaSFO
Posts: 2407
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2000 11:22 am

RE: Boeing Seeks ETOPS240

Sun Jun 24, 2001 2:36 am


Username: Joni

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


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


Unless Noel Forgeard or John Leahy have second jobs with the FAA, I doubt that.
It's a new day. Every moment matters. Now, more than ever.
 
galaxy5
Posts: 1952
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2000 10:09 pm

RE: Boeing Seeks ETOPS240

Sun Jun 24, 2001 2:38 am

how come you guys keep saying that a four engine aircraft has such a better chance of engine failure, its just not true. its still the same engines made by the same companies, yes it may be inspected more frequently but it still will have the same mean time between failure.
"damn, I didnt know prince could Ball like that" - Charlie Murphy
 
gaut
Posts: 436
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2001 10:57 am

RE: Boeing Seeks ETOPS240

Sun Jun 24, 2001 2:41 am

BlatantEcho,

If we follow your idea why Airbus and Boeing don't build a single engined aircraft???
Maybe for safety reasons ?
You are comparing an 10 seat propeller with 400+ pax aircraft!
«Horum omnium fortissimi sunt Belgae.»
 
LON-CHI
Posts: 204
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2001 5:31 pm

RE: Boeing Seeks ETOPS240

Sun Jun 24, 2001 2:49 am

Galaxy5,

An aircraft with four engines has more of a chance to experience problems with one of those engines compared to an aircraft with only two. It's all about probability.
 
A330/B777
Posts: 163
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2001 4:48 am

RE: Boeing Seeks ETOPS240

Sun Jun 24, 2001 3:01 am

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

This whole argument about having twice as much that can go wrong with a quad is pointless. Redundency is not a liability.
 
ha2vegas
Posts: 147
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2001 1:02 pm

RE: Boeing Seeks ETOPS240

Sun Jun 24, 2001 3:02 am

Probabilty does not dictate that having 4 engines multiplies the chances of a failure. Assuming all other factors are consistent, the probability that any one engine will fail is identical whether there are 2, 4, or 10 enignes involved.
 
B747-437B
Posts: 8777
Joined: Thu May 30, 2002 6:54 am

RE: Boeing Seeks ETOPS240

Sun Jun 24, 2001 3:31 am

Ha2vegas - Your logic holds true for the probability of one PARTICULAR engine failing. However, the probability of ANY one engine failing increases as the sample size of engines under consideration increases.
"The A340-300 may boast a long range, but the A340 is underpowered" -- Robert Milton, CEO - Air Canada
 
LON-CHI
Posts: 204
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2001 5:31 pm

RE: Boeing Seeks ETOPS240

Sun Jun 24, 2001 4:09 am

Well said, B747-437B. You explained it much better than I did.

A330/B777, the argument is not pointless, IMO. As it has been explained here, a four-engine plane has more of a chance experiencing an engine failure than a two engine craft. So, along those lines, a four engine craft also has more of a chance of experiencing an uncontained engine failure, which can could possibly bring that plane down. Sure, the chances of that happening are slim, but probably not as slim as a two-engine airplane losing both engines in flight.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ASFlyer, BoeingVista, Caryjack, d8s, GavinSharp, Google Adsense [Bot], hoons90, hummingbird, Indy, karungguni, madviking, MAH4546 and 157 guests