Originally Posted by
Dick Smith
I have recently heard a story about an aeronautical engineer who will not fly on the long trans-oceanic routes in anything less than a Boeing 747 or an Airbus A380. This person claims the reason is safety, and that a twin engine airline jet of similar manufacturing date (and therefore safety features) will never be as safe as a four engine aircraft.
He claims the whole ETOPS system is simply based on probability, and that one day, a twin engine aircraft will end up in the drink.
This person claims the safety difference is very small, but it is there nevertheless.
If this is so, how does CASA justify Part 9A of the Civil Aviation Act, which says that the number one priority shall be safety. In this case, it looks as if the number one priority is moving more passengers at a lower cost.
I would like to know what others comments are on this – especially those who have an aeronautical safety qualification and understand the risk matrix.
Presumably if the twin engine planes were as “safe” there would be no reason for ETOPS restrictions.
Dick,
This post tops any other of your loosely based neurotic posts.
Your engineer mate can have any position he likes on which aircraft he wishes to travel but it is no more soundly based than someone else’s view based on religion,politics,skin colour or sexual preference.