Originally Posted by
JW411
I went solo in 1957. From 1962 until I retired in 2006 I never had less than 4 engines to play with (apart from 8 years on the DC-10).
First of all, I should make a point of saying that I have a lot of respect for you and your input, so please don't take anything I say as personal - I'm just trying a bit of Devil's Advocaat*.
To the best of my knowledge in 1962, there was only one four-holer capable of flying indefinitely on one donk. That was the VC-10, and it wasn't common knowledge that it could even back then! :
Originally Posted by
Davita
As an instructor in the RAF VC10 sim we had to similate the procedure for crew activity prior to ditching.
To save time we wrote a programme which meant the crew would leave Brize for Gander/Goose Bay (I forget). After many faults, during start and T.O which we would tick-off the training sheet, we would re-position the crew half-way across the Atlantic close to a weather ship. The briefing was we would cause numerous engine failures where they would apply the appropriate drills, so we could tick them as complete, then we would leave the crew with only one engine and thus they would carry out the flight side of a ditching drill.
On one occasion this crew were descending on one engine at full power and the Air Eng was dumping fuel as per....when the Capt. said "Stop dumping!".
The VC10 had levelled out at full power! A quick check of the fuel indicated they could still fly and they then established they could make it to the coast of Ireland with the prevailing wind.
As instructors we were flummoxed and, as there was another training session later, we needed get this one finished so we reversed the tailwind
However, after establishing that the computer and the condition were accurate we reviewed our training to include the possibility of flying on one engine to a better location to land or ditch.
Amazing Aircraft.
Crossing the Atlantic or the Pacific in an aeroplane with only two engines was something that would have filled me and my colleagues with horror.
Are we talking about your colleagues of the 1962 vintage? Not to be facetious, but I'd imagine that from at least the mid-1980s onwards many of your colleagues would have been doing it day in and day out.
As others have alluded to, the advent of stupendously powerful high-bypass donks meant that there was enough power in one of them to keep most airliners flying indefinitely on one.
For me, it was quite easy. If you have four engines running, think three.
If you have three engines running, think two.
Sage advice, and I won't argue with it. However, there's a difference between mentally preparing for the worst and the likelihood of the worst happening.
...it is hardly surprising that the two engine lobby can't understand the thinking of the four engine lobby who are now in the minority.
This is the bit I don't understand. I doubt very much that there exists such a thing as a "four-engine" and "two-engine" lobby. No doubt there are cogent arguments supporting both positions, but I believe that the arguments are based on different criteria than they were, say, thirty years ago.
The loss of one out of four is a bit of an annoyance.
The loss of one out of two IS AN EMERGENCY.
Which is why ETOPS regs are as strict as they are, no?
It was probably ten years ago when a United Airlines 777 was headed from the Far East to the USA when it lost an engine.
...
Are any of you out there really going to tell me that the crew were more than happy with their situation or do you not think that they might just have wished that they had started off with four engines?
It's a bit more complicated than that though, is it not? Given the steady and proven reliability improvements over time, would a crew prefer two PW4000/RB211-500series donks over four JT-9/RR Conways?
As far as I am concerned, those of you you who have become convinced that flying across the oceans of the world is statistically safer on two engines than it is on four engines have been brain-washed and are more than somewhat deluded.
I don't think anyone is convinced that two engines are safer than four, I think it's more to do with a gradual acceptance over time that modern jet engine reliability has shifted the boundaries of the argument. To the best of my knowledge there have been no long-haul incidents involving multiple engine failure as a result of the engines themselves over the last thirty years. Fuel starvation, volcanic dust and maintenance foul-ups, yes (including types with three and four engines) - but none as a result of design-inherent engine failure or reliability problems.
* - Advocate means lawyers - I prefer booze.
