Originally Posted by
wiggy
So ETOPS or not (and the incident in question here is not an ETOPs issue) what’s your suggested bottom line in terms of maximum distance from an alternate?
Had you read my post more carefully you'd see I made no suggestion nor implied one was required. I merely made a factual statement.
Almost 900 miles out in the Atlantic - Then takes 2 hours to get back to SNN - not nice at all when you are smelling burning...120 Mins of ETOPS would be quite enough for me.
Rog said it, not me.
What exactly has the number of engines got to do with this? The outcome would have been the same in a tri jet or a quad.
Are you suggesting that ETOPS is unsafe?
Again, had you troubled to actually read my post you'd realise I made no mention nor implication re safety - you invented that!
It is quite extraordinary how some people manage to invent so much extra content from a simple sentence that simply isn't there, ony in
their heads!
With no ETOPS and 3-4 engines they'd have been even further away so number of engines is clearly relevant. Prefer 3 hrs of worry with a smoke emergency than 2 do you? Strange.
Equally if it were only say a theoretical 90 minutes ETOPS they'd have been closer.
If ETOPS didn't exist for twins they'd be out in the middle 3 hrs away too.
So how can you say number of engines is irrelevant when it (via ETOPS) determines how far from a diversion you are?