You are probably all correct about the inherent dangers of flying twins on ETOPS rules, but the most commonly used type on cross atlantic flights is the 767, and has been so for quite some time. I belive that upwards of 60 % of all transatlantic flights are performed by 2 engine jets. And even with the latest issue with CF6 engines, I cannot recall an accident with the 767 that has been attributed to ETOPS operations.
Surely, a jet engine is not 100 % failsafe, but it's damn close and that is as good as it's going to get. You are persuing a very interesting intellectual excersise.
I am not defending the calculations which says an engine won't fail for 1 10-9 or whatever, but merely that uncontained engine failures on ETOPS jets is very uncommon.
Purple Haze,
I do not, as the above should indicate, agree that transatlantic flights should be 3 or 4 engined. There are sufficient diversion options to make a 180 minute ETOPS flight perfectly safe. Sure, 3 is better than 2 and 4 is better than 3. But 2 is sufficient, so why the overkill ? It's basically about economics and passengers preferring direct flights on smaller jets over going hub to hub on 747's.
What I'm not so impressed by is Boeings ambition to obtain 207 minute ETOPS, allowing the 772LR to go trans pacific. Not because of the engines, but the lack of suitable diversions. Yes, there are airports with runways in Siberia and other exotic places, but they lack the infrastructure to support a diversion of a 300 pax jet. No shelter, no stairs, no heat, no food, no technical facilities, no nothing. But technically you can land there, and on paper that's supposedly good enough.
Comments anybody ?