This will open another can of worms but.......
A/C operating to ETOPS standards are designed to ETOPS standards (simple enough eh), what this means of course (and here you rely on statistics which can be manipulated anyway etc etc) is that a 767, 777 or others, have engines supposedly built/maintained/checked prior to each departure to a higher standard to reduce the likelihood of failure. In addition, we can assume that the engine failure case is the least likely scenario to cause an ETOPs a/c to divert, the aircraft has better fire suppression systems, more reliable electrical systems, hydraulics, extra preflight checks, and more stringent maintenance etc etc.
Now I am sure some expert can correct me on a few of those things, but essentially what it boils down to is that despite the mighty 747s having 4 donks, you should theoretically be safer on a twin designed to ETOPs standards because of the higher standards imposed, additional checking and redundancy. (The easy solution, build the 747 to the higher ETOPS Standards, and incoporate the appropriate maintanence and engineering and checking programs)
Of course the counter argument is you are safer because you have 4 donks, extra generators, and systems........
RRAAMJET - maybe it was a fairly acceptable decision to continue (I personally would have elected to return), I would hope, most crews would err on the side of caution. Its an expensive decision to make if it goes horribly wrong too. Aviation is pretty unforgiving, and you really need everything going in your favour.
Last edited by blueloo; 3rd Apr 2006 at 08:27.