The policy applies to 340/747
|Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 70):|
How convenient for you to hide behind company policy when you don't want to answer a question, because to do so would undermine your silly implication that ACs 777 passengers will be more likely to divert.
No one else posts their company fuel policies on the net, I am not going to start. It does offer us commercial advantage, and we know from doing charters for other airlines and when the bring up their flight plans and fuel to be carried we see a difference.
You are more than welcome to apply for a job with us, and if successful, you would get access to the information.
|Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 80):|
You ave a very selective memory. If you haven't seen A340s diverting, maybe it's because your'e just not looking.
340s do divert, we had one recently, however the reason for the divert had nothing to do with the aircraft. I have never had to cancel a flight, or divert on a 340 for a aircraft related problem.
As for the stats Randy was quoting there is was found he was bending the truth a little, at the time the 777 was flying much shorter sector times than the 340, for every 2or 3x777 sectors the 340 would do 1, when you look at the stats it seemed worse, but if normalized over the flight hours they were similar.
We had a thread on this a few months back
In our airline the 330/340 has a lower diversion rate, and higher dispatch reliability than the 777/747.
|Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 80):|
What does a cracked windshield have to do with ETOPS?
Very little, but say a loss of generator in flight may cause a diversion, re-clearance over a non-etops path, where you would not have that problem on a quad.
|Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 86):|
Given that ETOPS is going away and being replaced by LROPS, Er... the number of engines is near meaningless in the near future. No longer will Airlines be able to take you to the most remote parts of the world with only a minimum of fire suppression, or w/o impeccable MX. Now they will have to follow the same routes as a 777, and have the same fire suppression and MX.
LROPS at the moment is a FAA only thing, it does not have the international aviation support.
|Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 96):|
An open window at 470kts would likely kill or severely injure the crew...instantly between the high velocity material blown at them and the subsequent depressurization it's hard to imagine that being a surviavable event. Just IMO...
What civil aircraft do have an IAS of 470kt ? In cruise we do not sit that far above the max IAS to open the cockpit window.
|Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 100):|
I assume the record for the longest single-engine ETOPS diversion remains the UA 777-200 en route AKL-LAX on March 17, 2003, that shut an engine down and diverted to Kona, Hawaii.
I was of the understanding it was up around 193 minutes.
|Quoting Pygmalion (Reply 101):|
Any pilot that says he doesn't trust statistics should be raising goats not flying.
Another statistic for you, most of the remote ETOPS alternates do not appear on any travel agents books, they tend to have some of the worst weather, and no facilities.
|Quoting KrisYYZ (Reply 104):|
The GEnx engines would already be in the fleet on the B787s and there would be flight deck commonality advantages as well.
No flight deck commonality between the two, the 748 will have commonality with the 744.
That is BS
|Quoting Antskip (Reply 106):|
The above is the sort of use of "hard facts" / statistics or whatever that is a problem. To argue that statistics shows (and so does logic) that having half as many engines halves the likelihood of engine failure is fraught with problems. The logic also means that a single is twice as unlikely to have engine failure as a twin. But the implication that having statistically half the chance of engine failure somehow makes a twin more than a match for a quad, in the safety stakes over areas far from land, is problematic. Though a single may be 4X as unlikely to have engine failure as a quad; if that were to happen, it is the end game for the single (now zero) there and then. Similarly, though a twin is statistically only half as likely to lose an engine as a quad, it then finds itself in the position of a single - with no redundancy left
What I dont like about twins in remote areas is the lack of options, on a quad, with a failure for a non-critical emergency with an engine shut down, I can make it to a company port on 3 engines. We can look after the aircraft, and the people better at those ports, and the airport is a known quantity.
With a twin on say a north pacific operation, we have no experience into the diversion airports, many of which have horrible weather, crosswinds exceeding aircraft limits, lack precision approaches to all runways, with some other non trivial phenomena like severe mountain wave turbulence and high terrain.
Another factor people seem to forget is that it is the technology in the engine which is a factor in its reliability, not the number of engines installed on an aircraft. I would fully expect a A380/748i to have a lower IFSD rate than a 777 due to the newer engine technology, just like I expect a 744 to be more reliable than a 707 or 747-100/200.
|Quoting SEPilot (Reply 118):|
There has never been a jet transport that has suffered two unrelated engine failures on the same flight, and that includes all the quads flying before ETOPS was invented. That is why ETOPS was considered practical to begin with.
There has been, El Al 747 for example. One of our related companies has had two unrelated failures within the engine systems on a etops twin, and were lucky to get the aircraft on the ground before the second failure became worse.