Originally Posted by
old,not bold
But that isn't the choice, is it? I think that my last flight on a smokey 707 must have been in 1971, but I'm not sure.
I would rather be on a modern aircraft with four modern, computer controlled and remote monitored engines, and luckily for me they exist and I have that choice available, at least on long over-water sectors, so that when one of the modern, computer controlled and remote monitored engines decides to pack up or, as in this case. shed most of its front end, there are 3 more instead of just the one.
One of my problems with ETOPS, apart from the imminent prospect of approval for 420 minutes s/e diversion time (ie 7 long hours over the freezing Southen Ocean hoping the remaining engine won't suffer a failure and that the aircraft's remaining significant systems will continue to perform in accordance with a set of statistical assumptions), is the way that maintenance procedures are designed to make the aircraft safer than one that's not ETOPS certified. By and large, I would rather that the extra care is applied to every aircraft used on commercial air transport. The regulations essentially acknowledge - admit - that this is not the case.
FAA now assert ETOPS standards for all large aircraft. That's why ETOPS now means ExTended OPerationS instead of Extended Twin OPerationS.