Originally Posted by stagger
All I am suggesting is that before embarking on an extended flight over the North Atlantic it needs to be considered that the quad (on 3 engines) is 50% more likely to experience an IFSD than a twin on 2. This is just one factor to be considered - there are of course many others.
That´s what I mean by setting aside the fact of the number of engines.
The discussion you guys are having, about 4 versus 2 engines is interesting but has nothing to do with why the FAA got involved.
Shooting in my owbn foot ... I do not think so.
Its a fact of life that the 4, 3 and 2 engine powered jet are there for sale... if you want one then pick one out. There are pro´s and con´s arguments for each type and are are all regulated in a differant way.
As I said before it will not be easy for BA to show that the rules that govern their ops were intended to cover this case and that´s the whole point.
Redundancy NOT to be used for strickly commercial reasons is not within the spirit of the regulations. That ´s the point I made earlier on and that´s where this tread stands right now.
That is the step foreward from endless debate about 4 versus 2 and may very well be the outcome of this conflict.