The CFM56 is clearly outstandingly reliable but does anyone have facts about instantaneous vs gradual failures.
Lompo -You ask why the concern about gradual failures ... an example would be crossing the Atlantic in a 737 - 900 with a slow oil leak. We are taking delivery of some NGs over the next few months (and there is than one 737 ETOPs operator routinely flying across the pond).
You will not get a pop up until two thirds of your oil pressure is lost. This is not "good warning of pending failure" and could make the difference between a two engined precautionary landing at KEF and a much more unpleasant in flight shut down / single engine approach into Kangerlussuak.
It is not as if half a dozen extra instruments give us a massive increase in workload crossing an ocean. the information is there any sensible argument for not using it?
V1 cut is clearly highest risk/consequence failure point and rightly tested. Be nice to do something different once in a while is all I was saying on this.
Last edited by Miss Creant; 20th Mar 2009 at 21:52.
Reason: Kangerlussak