Transoceanic flights — are two engines enough?

Statistics are all very well. Until your own family are on board a 200 ton glider

I’d sooner that than a 120 ton Mach 12 glider which had to re-enter the atmosphere. I know it’s a bit off topic but it puts the risks in perspective in my mind. Not sure if it’s any consolation to anyone else though.

Until your own family are on board

Thanks Oxcart, that was exactly the point I was trying to make in my first post.

You realise that in a few years you’ll be posing the same question about the necessity of two engines when one is perfectly reliable…;o)

I doubt they will ever allow that.

All systems have to have some sort of back up or duplication so one engine will never be an option.

Twins are fine for the job. I can’t think of a single incident where one has crashed because it was a twin for reasons raised in this thread.

Things like fuel starvation or mass damage from an external source which has happened, can turn an aeroplane into a glider no matter how many engines it has.

As modern airframes continue to improve for fuel economy by better aerodynamics with less drag, aeroplane are getting more capable of gliding for longer.

Bear in mind, 100 per cent safety will never be achievable, there will always be risk, no matter how small.

That’s just the reality of life

Statistics are all very well. Until your own family are on board a 200 ton glider

When you take into account the fact that one of the modern engines produces more power than all four engines of the Boeing 707 combined plus their far better reliability I’d say yes two engines are sufficient.

You realise that in a few years you’ll be posing the same question about the necessity of two engines when one is perfectly reliable…;o)

Fire is a much more serious threat IMHO. On average you have 17 minutes if a serious fire occurs on board. If you are 3 hours away from land you are going swimming.

Don’t confuse him with obvious logic…or statistics for that matter. 🙂

I’m sure he never drives anywhere unless it’s on a divided highway and all cross roads have been blocked.

Or for that matter I’m sure he doesn’t drink, smoke, eats darn near anything, or goes outside, lest he gets hit by lightning.

Err, sorry, what did I say that rattled your cage JB?

All I was pointing out was that ETOPS rules are based on statistics, which is fine for everyone except those unfortunate few that happen to be aboard the one flight in ten million (or whatever number applies) that will (statistically) suffer twin engine failure at some point in time and perhaps end up in the water beyond range of rescue services – at which point the sensationalist media will no doubt whip up a furore asking why such “risks to “unsuspecting” passengers)”were considered acceptable by the authorities (who the media will no oubt claim were “bowing to pressure from profit-hungry airlines” etc etc).

Look at all the media finger-pointing that followed the loss of Air France over the Atlantic, and the “disappearance” of Malaysian over the Indian Ocean – lots of media “surprise” that commercial pax flights are often well beyond radar coverage, and again the, more recent, MH17-driven media concerns raised about commercial overflight of war zones etc – plenty of evidence that the media, and many pax, have no real understanding of how risks are assessed and decisions made that relate to flights they may take.

If you read my post I clearly said “it seems that current ETOPS rules are sufficient to protect passengers”. By which I was stating that the statistics bear out the current rules – no more, no less.

I wasn’t saying I disagreed with those that set the ETOPS rules – so why such a snotty response :stupid:?

Many thanks Frank.

Emergency landing says it all..they landed safelt at the first availiable airport which is what they are supposed to do. If anything, the safely continuing on one engine supports the notion of twin ETOPS…it works and works well.

OK so the other could fail, but sometime all four engines have failed like the BA 747..OK he got them going again, but there are time when no matter how many you have all could fail…rare and that is all you can play, the rarity of any percieved event.

I see that I duplicated a post above, which sort of offends my sense of perfection and order. Does anyone know how to get rid of one of them given that the post has been replied to and the normal delete button has gone?

I fixed it 🙂

But… if someone had ran through a red light in the past week, they could have knocked you down and killed you – does than mean you never cross a road?

Don’t confuse him with obvious logic…or statistics for that matter. 🙂

I’m sure he never drives anywhere unless it’s on a divided highway and all cross roads have been blocked.

Or for that matter I’m sure he doesn’t drink, smoke, eats darn near anything, or goes outside, lest he gets hit by lightning.
Yes, it’s a one in a million shot you’ll get hit by lightning…but it you do, it will ruin your day.

As they say…life’s a b!tch…:)

Obviously, all commercial aircraft operations should be made by 747 or 777, 340, 380 (or whatever has the best safety record)…regardless of the length of the sector.
Anything less shows a willful disregard of public safety.

The 8-engined A380 above has a certain je ne sais quoi, I’ll concede.

I see that I duplicated a post above, which sort of offends my sense of perfection and order. Does anyone know how to get rid of one of them given that the post has been replied to and the normal delete button has gone?

However, for the pax and crew on either of those two flights, had the 2nd engine failed, then the outcome would have been a 100% failure, which would have been pretty significant for all involved!

Yes. If it had.

But… if someone had ran through a red light in the past week, they could have knocked you down and killed you – does than mean you never cross a road?

Basing an argument on remotely possible and any potential scenarios is paralysis by smart-assed lawyers with 20:20 hindsight at its worst.

What if an asteroid had hit Heathrow and destroyed a 747 or 380 on the ramp? Should we ban Heathrow, the 747 or the 380?

Two cases from thousands of ETOPS crossings.

Let’s not fuel the hysteria.

Ah, the old reliance on statistics. Yes, in terms of the number of daily ETOPS movements, 2 “precautionary” landings is so small as to be insignificant.

However, for the pax and crew on either of those two flights, had the 2nd engine failed, then the outcome would have been a 100% failure, which would have been pretty significant for all involved!

So, ETOPS will be regarded as safe unless, and until, a twin goes down “mid-ocean” solely due to the mechanical failure of both engines. At that point the authorities will have to review their policy prompted no doubt by public outrage that “the regulators allowed such unsafe practices by those money-grabbing airlines”, and ETOPS rules will probably then be adjusted to ensure twins stay closer to diversionary airfields at all points during flights etc.

As no aircraft have been lost, and only two appear to have had to make precautionary landings, it seems that current ETOPS rules are sufficient to protect the passengers.

Too right… and the airframers agree.

In a world wide exclusive, Boeing’s 797:

I think two engines are plenty.

Virgin Atlantic once used a ‘4 Engines 4 Safety’ tag on its then newly acquired A340-600s. Now, I believe, Virgin can’t wait to get rid of them in favour of twins.

ETOPS : Engines Turning Or Passengers Swimming 😀

Two cases from thousands of ETOPS crossings.

Let’s not fuel the hysteria.

The cases where aircraft have come down in the water, having two engines have had nothing to do with the incidents.

Besides, I’ve crossed the Pacific in an elderly DC-6, so to me, any jet is an improvement. 🙂