GF,
Utterly ridiculous, the FAA has no knowledge or concern for 3 and 4 engine operations. They are trying to fit everything into their narrow 2-engine view. While ETOPS experience has made ALL airliners, regardless of engines, more reliable and safer, there is no reason to restrict 3 and 4 engine airliners to having 180 minute ERAs. A 747 OEI has more redundancy than a B777 takes off with.
Not necessarily true. Tis a fact, when it comes to engines, those on two engine ETOPS aircraft demonstrate a better record having less in-flight shutdowns or failures compared to engines on three or four engine aircraft. Some of this is advancement in engine technology but some is due to the extra requirements of engine maintenance and monitoring required to gain a 180 minute ETOPS rating. Engines are only part of the reasons for ETOPS. Other reasons for diversions include decompression, medical emergencies, observed smoke in the cabin or fire indication in the cargo hold. In twenty years, 1980-2000, 33 of 73 cruise decompressions occurred on airplanes with more than two engines. Diversion rate for aircraft causes or non-aircraft causes are the same for 2, 3 or 4 engine aircraft.
180 minute ETOPS approval starts with the airline meeting requirements of maintenance, training of ground personnel and flight personnel, training of route planners with an emphasis on suitable diversion airport for the aircraft requiring a diversion. This planning includes requirements to carry extra fuel for diversion purposes.
So it is more than just engines and when you think of it, how many routes in the world traveled by 3 or 4 engine aircraft would be affected by a 180 minute ETOPS requirement?
TD