FAA to conclude 2 engines as safe as 3 or 4

[SeenItAll]

There were articles in the Wall Street Journal and Reuters yesterday (reproduction prohibited) stating that the FAA is poised to issue regulations concluding that 2-engine operations are as safe as 3- or 4-engine operations and that ETOPS upper limits can expand to 5 1/2 hours (330 minutes).

Link to the Reuters article:
http://today.reuters.com/investing/financeArticle.aspx?type=governmentFilingsNews&storyID=2006-06-05T073748Z_01_N05256924_RTRIDST_0_TRANSPORT-BOEING-RULES.XML

[Tuba Mirum]

Speaking as a pax, and as one who would have been comfortable with the controversial BA 3-engine decision discussed recently, I would not feel comfortable with this. Particularly poor timing given the very recent failure of an engine on a ground run, documented in this forum.

[jondc9]

hi tuba

for the record, that engine ground run I described elsewhere was about 5 years ago, just to remove any confusion.

as to this interesting development, I would just say that the rules should be changed so that a loss of any engine should require a landing at a prudent and responsibly selected nearby airport. nearby is open to judgement I suppose.

[Rainboe]

Saskatoon, you may well be right, but we are discussing the engine failure case as it was the FAA that saw fit to make such an issue of a 4 engine jet flying on 3 engines!

The inmates have taken over the asylum! This creeping extension of ETOPs has been insidious...each time 'it's only increased by 30 minutes- no problem!'. So it's gone up from 150 minutes to 330 in 'harmless little notches'! Are we really proposing to submit the squidgy breakable pink things to rely on their survival on one engine for 5 1/2 hours? Think about it! One engine that has been at high power with bleeds delivering full air supplies and generator flogging away, hydraulic pumps giving their all? Well blow me down! And just to make sure that them furriners don't get any undue advantage operating 4 engine jets against Uncle Sam Airlines twins, we'll try and make them furriners work to the same engine failure rules as Uncle Sam Airlines....ie it's no better than being on just one engine being on three. I see. Well done FAA....but I don't think Johnny Furriner is going to believe you or listen!

[Danny]

jondc9, whilst we appreciate that you consider yourself an expert in all matters aviation and lay claim to fame with your live Chicken Noodle News 'expertise' during any live aviation incidents, I think you will find that the reference to "...the very recent failure of an engine on a ground run, documented in this forum." is actually referring to this more recent incident: American Airlines B767 engine failure (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=228919).

It would appear that the incident wasn't 'live' enough for CNN to have called upon your expertise for a running commentary. No doubt though, you will be giving them your thoughts about the BA B744 LAX incident when the BA appeal against their fine by the FAA is reported.

In the meantime it looks as though 330 minutes on one engine will be proposed and you can be as subjective as you like about how 'nearby' a suitable airport can be. Your comment "I would just say that the rules should be changed so that a loss of any engine should require a landing at a prudent and responsibly selected nearby airport." is once again made without any real knowledge of the B744 and system redundancies. Heck, I'll even bet you think the A340 is just as redundant with its systems as the B744 because you can see four engines hanging off the wings.

The flying public base their opinions on what the 'experts' tell them. It would seem that the qualifications to get that status are a little ambiguous and murky. :rolleyes:

[Silver Tongued Cavalier]

From Wall St Journal :

The regulations are expected to allow twin-engine jetliners to fly routes where the nearest airport is as much as 5½ hours away. That would open up the vast majority of commercial routes world-wide for the 777 as well as Boeing's next-generation 787 Dreamliner, expected to go into service in mid-2008.

Operators of long-range planes with three and four engines, particularly older models, will likely also face additional requirements to bring them to the same standard as newer twin-engine planes.

:bored: Wow, Airbus really are up against the FAA(Boeing). :(

[jondc9]

oh danny boy, the pipes the pipes are calling

I hadn't seen the American 767 blowing an engine, please repost for my benefit. I mentioned my post because a 767 ground run was referenced without any further identification. And I had just posted it. Perhaps the forum member who mentions the 767 ground run will come in and tell us which post he was referencing?

I think the chap who worries more about a fire or other problem over the ocean at 30 w is right on target. also worrying about a bomb over the ocean ( like air india) or other problems are worthy of thoughtful planning for the "whatif" factor


and danny, I posted a way for you to check my credentials. you continue to attack me and my views. that is fine. I do think the 747-400 is a fine plane from what I have read. My views on the BA incident are known.

I hope that if you ever hear me saying something "wrong" on tv that you will write to me right away at: [email protected], you can even "IM" me and if you have real info I will use it!

all the best danny...next time try breaking the prozac in half ( quote from ''seinfeld'')

j

"oh those magnificent men in their flying machines, they go, they enchant all the ladies and steal the scene with their uppity up up they go down ditty down down, up, down, flying around, looping the loop and defying the ground, their so frightfully keen those magnificent young men in their flying machines."

PPS: danny, last time I checked the A330 doesn't have 4 engines, but perhaps you are right and I am wrong.

[Hand Solo]

PPS: danny, last time I checked the A330 doesn't have 4 engines, but perhaps you are right and I am wrong.

Well there has to be a first time for everything.

[Ignition Override]

Combining such future ETOPs regulations with the reality of airlines outsourcing so much of their heavy airframe and engine maintenance could prove interesting. The FAA only requires that the maintenance/engineer supervisor be FAA-licensed, at least in foreign countries, based on an article in the Wall Street Journal about JetBlues' contract with a facility in El Salvador.

Even at a well-known facility in the (US) Deep South, one airline experienced so many serious logbook write-ups on various aircraft within a day of return to line operations, it was required to base one of its own airline maint. crew chiefs at the facility, in order to avoid serious problems. He picked us up at the terminal after the flight on ASA from Atlanta and drove us to the hangar.
In the 80's, the Naval Air Reserve lost a Convair 580 (based at the NAF by Andrews AFB) and flightcrew upon departure from the same facility. An inspection near the elevator control cable was not performed correctly and during the emergency return to the runway, each time the control yoke went forward, it could not be pulled back. "...Sweet home A------....".

One notable incident in the 90s involved a Valuejet (now called AirTran) DC-9 engine which had been overhauled in another country and at takeoff power lost some turbine blades on a runway in Atlanta (ATL). As painful as it was for the Flight Attendant on the aft jumpseat, at least it was not overwater, with four hours to reach an airport in January in the north Atlantic or Pacific.
How about outsourced maintenance performed on APUs and RATs, which provide back-up electrical power and hydraulic pressure for primary flight controls? A B-757/767 E&E compartment wehich senses smoke, or if the left recirc fan switch is mistakenly switched off, auto. opens the overboard exhaust valve and it latches open, can NOT be closed in the air. The cabin climbs about 1,000 fpm or more, and as you descend, the fuel flow increases a good bit. A Captain I was with, who could not control the hot cabin temp. in auto or manual, impulsively switched off the left recirc fan. Woops! But we were over level terrain and not far from dest. airport.

With the huge financial burdens placed on the airlines, and pressure on all departments to reduce costs, how will the FAA ensure that maintenance, mostly outsourced, for engines and aircraft systems to be used under ETOPS rules will be to the highest standards?

Are the severe demands to reduce costs the main factor in the FAA's announcement, or could it be to some extent politically motivated? Let's not forget who appoints the top administrators...
Perhaps the FAA decided to modify their traditional "cost/benefit analysis" formulas as the basis for safety decisions? :oh:

Let's forget about the undeclared hazardous material in a cargo bin, or in a passenger's bag in the cabin overhead bin. Lots of fuel for camping is carried onboard. None of this will be a factor. Perhaps a duplicate of a Viking ship will be available two hours from Iceland to pick up a few of those who ditch in the bitterly cold waters.

[View From The Ground]

I have no problem being an ETOPS pax as the rules currently exist.....330 minutes away just seems toooooooo far. How many of us would have actually chosen to sit on that UA that did the longest single engine diversion so far....not many methinks....would any of us really want to be on one engine for 5 1/2 hours or indeed not feel a touch of nervousness.
The other thing that Boeing should bear in mind is that if one of their airplanes drops into the sea after a double engine failure on a 5 1/2 hour ETOPS flight that it may suffer greater restrictions on ETOPS than the current pretty sensible rules that apply. How would Boeing's marketing and indeed airline economics be affected if the rules became more restrictive...as they well might if the above ever occurs.
Lets play safe and leave the rules as they are...

[arcniz]

Forgive me, if possible, for being ghoulish, but the following seems to be a proper analysis:

One can see, from this moment looking forward, how the scenario plays out.

a. The 330-minute ETOPS rule goes into effect.

b. Some days, months, or years after this, an aircraft carrying passengers is caught in a web of circumstance that cause it to go down, with loss of life, in conditions that would not have occurred under the 'old' rules.

c. Hue and cry results. Public outrage requires reconsideration and tightening of the 330 ETOPS rule. Suddenly a large number of ETOPS twins and crews are surplus.

If this rule becomes effective, it would be a good point in time to see that specific individuals in the approval chain for 330 ETOPS have their names attached to the concept, IN LARGE LETTERS, so the public will know where to direct its anger when the time comes.

[fantom]

...concluding that 2-engine operations are as safe as 3- or 4-engine operations and that ETOPS upper limits can expand to 5 1/2 hours (330 minutes).
You jest. I fly to 180 minutes ETOPS and think that is quite enuff. 330 minutes? forget it.
Anyway, what about the customers and the crews who are invited to do this. Are they asked?

[SeenItAll]

Although there are certainly many concerns with ETOPS 330, I'm not sure I fully agree with the concern that if a mechanical failure occurs during an ETOPS 330 flight, it means that regulations will be revised to become more restrictive.

My reasoning is as follows. Unless the mechanical failure occurs during the time that the flight is greater than 207 minutes from safe harbor, it is not an occurrence that flows directly from this increase in ETOPS time. Certainly, the in-flight time that occurs when the plane is greater than 207 minutes from an airport is quite small relative to the in-flight time while the plane is within 207 minutes. Indeed, most failures seem to occur on takeoff or landing, so the likelihood drops even more.

But even if the instigating mechanical failure occurs during supra-207 minute flight, an ETOPS "failure" due to this lengthening may not be considered to occur unless the plane then crashes before reaching an airport. But even this unfortunate event may not be the fault of the ETOPS lengthening unless it occurs after 207 minutes of one-engine flight. Certainly this too, is of small probability.

Thus, when you multiply the probabilities that the fault will only occur when beyond 207 minutes AND that the resulting single-engine flight continues for beyond 207 minutes before final failure, you get an extremely small overall probability. (Note that this presumes that both probabilities are independent, which may not be the case.) But based on logic, the only occurrences that would suggest that ETOPS should then be shrunk back to 207 minutes are those of this vanishingly small likelihood.

Again please note, I am not endorsing this expansion of ETOPS, only observing that the likelihood of a future occurrence that would prove it to have been unwise (presuming one is OK with 207 minute ETOPS -- which may not be the case) is very small. Indeed, this is what the FAA is probably banking on.

[Tuba Mirum]

Perhaps the forum member who mentions the 767 ground run will come in and tell us which post he was referencing?

See this thread (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=228919) . On page 1 now as I look at it.

[vapilot2004]

From Wall St Journal :
The regulations are expected to allow twin-engine jetliners to fly routes where the nearest airport is as much as 5½ hours away. That would open up the vast majority of commercial routes world-wide for the 777 as well as Boeing's next-generation 787 Dreamliner, expected to go into service in mid-2008.
Operators of long-range planes with three and four engines, particularly older models, will likely also face additional requirements to bring them to the same standard as newer twin-engine planes.
:bored: Wow, Airbus really are up against the FAA(Boeing). :(

Please note that both manufacturers produce 2 engined aircraft that fly over long routes and both would possibly benefit from this ruling.

While it may be fun for one to accuse the FAA/NTSB of collusion with Boeing, nothing could be further from the truth. Both agencies are autonomous and while the heads may be political appointees, the internal workings are typical big government comprising thousands of individuals with independent thought capabilities. :)

I can think of only one clear and documented example of political pressure affecting the otherwise good judgment of these safety-focused organizations in the past say, 5 years, and I can tell you, the outcome did not favour Boeing in the slightest.

This is not to say that I would agree with the new ETOPS ruling - seems a bit long to me as well.

[Hand Solo]

But the only aircraft Boeing are likely to sell in any numbers are twins. The FAA have a dual mandate, not just to regulate aviation in the USA but also to promote American commercial interests. This ruling seems to demonstrate the latter quite adequately. I doubt the NTSB had anything to do with this ruling, nor do the FAA always pay heed to their findings, especially if those findings involve people having to spend money. Fortunately there are other regulatory bodies in the world and I doubt the FAA will find such ready approval for 330 minutes ETOPS or onerous restrictions on 3 or 4 engined aircraft from them.

[donstim]

I am extremely tired of this type of misinformation continually being quoted about the FAA's "dual mandate." First of all, the dual mandate was removed by the Federal Aviation Authorization Act of 1996. That act made it clear in law that the FAA's primary mission is to promote safety and security. Secondly, the former dual mandate was to promote air commerce in general, not specifically American commercial interests. And the interpretation within the FAA was that air commerce was promoted by looking after safety first.

[Ignition Override]

Donstim, good points.

However, let's review just two of the exceptions to the FAA's "safety first" policy. After one or two ATR-42s (with European airlines) suffered serious aileron control anomolies in icing conditions, the FAA gave US airlines no instructions or guidance to help avoid this problem. And so an ATR-42 suffered "aileron snatch" over Roselawn, Indiana, and every body onboard died. The First Officer was the son of one of our Captains. Before this tragedy, the FAA had been informed about the incidents in Europe, but did nothing, according to former Am. Eagle pilots who I've worked with often. The FAA realized that their icing certification was quite flawed-this was verified during testing behind a USAF KC-135, which sprayed water in front of an ATR-42. After the smashed bodies in Roselawn were put into plastic bags, the FAA could no longer pretend that they knew nothing about a problem. This is just one more example of "safety first".

We all know about Valuejet's horrific tragedy and how an airline inspector's concerns were overridden by those with higher GS (Government Service) ratings. Over the decades, the NTSB made dozens of rulings on safety issues, each of which individually would have been at very moderate cost to airlines, without any FAA regulatory changes. After the Jetstream accident in North Carolina, Part 135 airlines were ordered to upgrade to 121 standards, but aside from that the majority of relatively minor changes were ignored by our friends at the FAA. The FAA stressed that safety came first-but only AFTER the loss of revenue passengers on the Valujet DC-9, and the consequent awkward revelation in front of Congress and the NBS News network etc. Even the ValueJet Vice President of Maint. claimed that the overall maint. responsibility had been outsourced to SabreTech etc. This entire operation was with the FAA's blessings.

The FAA did have (has?) the cost/benefit analyses to help those gentlemen decide how much safety, and at what costs to given airline fleets. Based upon how many decades passed before the FAA required a standby/reserve flightcrewmember to have an assigned rest period during each consecutive 24 hours, we all understand the FAA's priorities. Never mind the addition of a ferry (Part 91) flight(s) to a long duty period, which is still not addressed by Part 121 duty period, crew rest rules and limitations, unless I've missed some changes.

My next question for Ppruners in general about ETOPs is whether, based on enroute alternates being further than is now allowed, will the US airlines allow a Captain to seriosly delay or cancel a flight, due to worsening alternate forecast weather?
If this type of ETOPs were allowed by many foreign government regulatory agencies (all subject to national political factors?), due to competitive reasons, would all of them allow a Captain to make decisions based upon safety instead of cost?

There are Dispatchers with major US airlines who, after a Captain requires fuel for an alternate airport, will deceptively take fuel OUT of the normal contingency, i.e. 25-35 minutes, and, like the wizard in Monty Python's "Holy Grail", "create" alternate fuel-but now the contingency fuel is about 10 minutes. No doubt about it, this is pure deception and bending to commercial pressures (a dispatch supervisor...notice that I do not capitalize those words). Several hours later that day at the same hub airport, the weather was much worse, and the release from TPA had a reasonable dispatch fuel load. My safety report followed, based upon the early morning flight. The further departure delay is then a result of waiting for the fuel truck to show up.

So what would this be like with commercial (political?) pressure to fly a much larger ETOPS jet almost as if it were a three or four-engine plane, and pilots concerns might threaten a 'loss of face' and schedule chaos for a flag carrier?

[Hand Solo]

.... the former dual mandate was to promote air commerce in general, not specifically American commercial interests. And the interpretation within the FAA was that air commerce was promoted by looking after safety first.

Yes, just like the USA has a State Department but no Foreign Affairs Department, to promote air commerce in general is to promote American aviation interests.

If air commerce was promoted by looking after safety first then why was the 737 allowed to continue for so long with a dubious rudder actuator? Why were the hours flown by the crew in the AA crash at KLIT legal?

[Globaliser]

I hadn't seen the American 767 blowing an engine, please repost for my benefit.I thought "experts" were supposed to keep themselves up to date? As far as I can tell, the AA incident's been on page 1 of R&N since the day it happened.

[20driver]

Domstim has a good point. Until you've seen it up close it is hard to appreciate what a independent (headless) bureaucracy the FAA is. Boeing and the airlines get an awful lot less out of them that you might expect.
Given the constant trend of air travel getting cheaper and safer something must be working, and not just at the FAA.
They are making the decision based on a lot of hard data and no one can accuse the FAA of jumping in too quickly on new ideas.
I do however think the constant subcontracting of maintenance really represents an avenue for undesirable results to creep in. As to the FAA is cetifying these repair stations I really don't think that is the same as a well run in house operation.

I've posted this question before and have yet to get an answer. Can anyone offer a case of two independent engine outs not caused by fuel or on ground maintenance errors. It seems that is has not happened with modern engines.

20driver

[Flip Flop Flyer]

Put it this way, as a fare paying passenger who just happen to have worked some 20 odd years in avaition, I wouldn't fancy boarding a twin for an ETOPS330, or even 207 flight. In fact, I'd go out of my way to find an airline which offered a 4 engine alternative. Call me old fashioned, but in my ideal world the FO would say "Captain, we just lost number 3!" to which the skipper would calmly reply "on which side?". I do appreciate that modern engines are reliable in the extreme, but experience has taught me that there is indeed such a thing as Murphy's Law, and sh1t will hit the fan at regular intervals. There really is no need, other than commercial pressure, to further extent ETOPS rules.

This one smacks of favouritism for the benefit of Boeing, as their future is very much hinged on twins. The "other" manufacturer would also benefit from ETOPS330, yes, but to a much smaller extent. Futhermore, if quads are to have the same level of care and attention given to ETOPS twins, then they are economically marginalized - further enhancing the benefit of Boeing. The conspiracy minded could see this as a way for the FAA to add costs to Airbus and their 340/380 series.

One can only hope that the European counterpart to the FAA (whos name eludes me now) will stand up and say "eh, don't think so Billy-Bob!".

I seem to remember the FAA and their European counterpart having had discussions on this subject before, without reaching an agreement. Far as I remember, the FAA was happy to just keep on extending the current ETOPS rules, and also include quads/tris in the picture, whereas the Europeans were more keen on a top-to-bottom revision and "properly" drafted rules and regulations. Whatever happend to those discussions?

[jondc9]

globalizler

I never said I was perfect...perhaps you missed a few other problems here in the US over the last week including an MD80 with hydraulic problems making an emergency landing at LAX?

I imagine anyone on this forum might be considered an expert after flying for more than 10 years/20/30+

would you like to be on tv as an expert? let me know.

;-)

also, I agree with the other post concerning flight time at the Little Rock crash and the concern about the rudder on 737.

I spoke twice to the deputy head and the head of the US FAA concerning:

timely dissemination of wx info to pilots
security training that was out of date (prior to 9/11)
crew rest
crew training

and the like...has anything changed? not really!

[lomapaseo]

Forgive me, if possible, for being ghoulish, but the following seems to be a proper analysis:

One can see, from this moment looking forward, how the scenario plays out.

a. The 330-minute ETOPS rule goes into effect.

b. Some days, months, or years after this, an aircraft carrying passengers is caught in a web of circumstance that cause it to go down, with loss of life, in conditions that would not have occurred under the 'old' rules.

c. Hue and cry results. Public outrage requires reconsideration and tightening of the 330 ETOPS rule. Suddenly a large number of ETOPS twins and crews are surplus.

If this rule becomes effective, it would be a good point in time to see that specific individuals in the approval chain for 330 ETOPS have their names attached to the concept, IN LARGE LETTERS, so the public will know where to direct its anger when the time comes.

Would you also ask for the names of those that approved the original FAR/JARs as well? As it is more likely that a 4 engine machine will be the one that splashes under ETOPs conditions (based on an equal number of flights)

Sure a twin will fail an engine or two, someday, but the quad will simply do it more often. And the real problem is not engine reliability or number of engines at all, its human error defeating whatever redundancy you have.

[Globaliser]

would you like to be on tv as an expert? let me know.No, I would not.

Yes, I do get asked to do it (in my own field), but I always turn it down.

I will not talk to journalists except as "deep background" (which you will know is even more anonymous than "non-attributable"). One reason is that I am too busy to be entirely up-to-date with everything. Therefore, I don't put myself in the firing line.

You, on the other hand, do put yourself forward. You're under no obligation to do so, so one assumes that you have chosen to do it. But if you do it, it would be more comforting to see that you are up-to-date before making sarcastic comments ("please repost for my benefit") in threads on PPRuNe where most contributors are - unlike me - in the same line of business as you. After all, if an industry outsider - like me - can have been reading about this incident for some time, first on PPRuNe and then in another industry publication (Flight), I imagine that this isn't "just another incident". The aircraft might get written off, after all, like that in one previous similar incident (US, PHL, 2000).

And it would also be more comforting to see you properly reading posts made by Danny, for whom I have the most enormous respect, before insulting him.

Back to my own field, I know personally some of the people who are regular talking heads (or talking voices on radio) in the same position in which you appear to be - "experts" wheeled out to pontificate on issues for the benefit of the masses. I have my opinions about them. I sometimes wonder whether it's the same type of person who does this in the airline field as well, but I say no more.

[jondc9]

oh globalizer

shame one you. first off the "danny post" and your statment about me misreading it:

I didn't misread it, he wrote of the A330 and HAS SINCED EDITED THE ERROR and replaced it with A340. We can all make typos and if Danny just admits that, fine! A typo is a typo! Ask your esteemed Danny if he miswrote A330 initially?

Second off, since I had just posted in another thread about the 767 engine run up/blow up I may have just thought the other chap was referencing my post. You see, I fly /flew out of PHL quite a bit and saw what happened to the 767 at PHL.

You have what we here in America call an "attitude" and I don't care for it. I have always said who I was, what my qualifications were, and always offered to listen to anyone who has information that might help report aviation items more accurately.


so mr. globalizer, go back to reading "FLIGHT" magazine and the like. Critique all you want of my posts or what I try to do to HELP improve aviation safety. Covering up bad situations is part of the problem. Speaking out openly gets things solved.

Take for instance my comments about the Southwest Airlines over-run at KMDW...it was just announced on the 5th that a Federal grant to put in the EMAS system has been granted . But maybe YOU don't know about that since you haven't gotten the most recent issue of "FLIGHT".


VeeOne!

jon

[Hand Solo]

The problem jon is that pretty much everyone with a shade of knowledge knew that when Danny wrote 330 he meant 340. If you took that literally then we can't criticise, although the 330 was not really germane to the point he was trying to make. What is an issue is that whilst you claim to be prepared to listen to anyone who has information that might help report aviation matters more accurately, on the BA LAX thread you performed the internet equivalent of sticking your fingers in both ears and shouting "nah nah nah I'm not listening". We had a raft of experienced 744 pilots from numerous different operators telling you the 744 is not like any other aircraft and that there was nothing dangerous about the conduct of the flight but you flatly refused to listen to them. Instead you resorted to "Aw shucks, I don't really care what you guys say, it just doesn't feel right to me". Perhaps if there was more evidence that you had carefully considered the views of the real experts on that thread then there would be more acceptance of your own 'expert' status on these forums.

[jondc9]

hand solo:

I did read what the 747 pilots had to say. We had quite a discussion over the idea of who has the right to say anything about certain types of planes and operations.

I also read what danny has posted. Someone who has constantly belittled those on TV talking about mistakes they make, like circling an engine and calling it a tail should know better than write A330 when he meant A340...I fully understand why my pal circled the engine and "tail" came out of his mouth...I also understand why danny might have typed A330 when he meant A340.

But if one is going to jump up and down at one thing, then expect it in return.

And yes, BA pilots in my opinion did the wrong thing by flying from LAX to England on 3 engines. Yes the 747 is unlike any other plane....so was "super car" and "Fireball XL5"

so hand solo, have a nice day...and keep counting those engines!

jon

[jondc9]

PS: hand solo


I have a friend who flys 744 for major airline in the Far East(no names please, but they speak english). Cleaning up his language quite a bit he thinks the BA pilots who decided to fly on to England on 3 did it strictly out of economic concern and were "idiots".

But perhaps since his 744 is painted a different color than yours his views don't matter?

Puh-leeze!


j

[jondc9]

PPS: Hand Solo
Perhaps to make it clearer I should have written "colour" instead of "color">
j

[411A]

<<....he thinks the BA pilots who decided to fly on to England on 3 did it strictly out of economic concern and were "idiots">>

Yep, about sums it up, me thinks.
TWO engines for very long range...I have no problem with that, seems quite reasonable, provided ETOPS regs are STRICTLY followed.

This three engines (on a four engine type) seems to be a Brit thing.
I recall many years ago DanAir applied to the ARB for approval to shut one engine down in cruise on the Comet, and the ARB politely ah...declined.
Smart, those ARB guys...then.:rolleyes:
With Davies in chage of certification, nothing slipped by...:ok:
He would likely spin in his grave if he knew what BA were up to, today.

[vapilot2004]

But the only aircraft Boeing are likely to sell in any numbers are twins.

With the current and projected oil situation in mind, I would imagine that this future sales prediction will also hold true for Airbus.

[Ignition Override]

Hand Solo:

Those are very valid questions. Before the Little Rock tragedy, flightcrew members on reserve/standby, had no pre-designated rest period (by Federal Air Regulations) for any or all consecutive 24-hour periods. This also applied to those who worked under union contracts.

In Britain, Ireland and Europe, can your company attach a ferry flight to your maximum duty period and thereby extend your work day or night by a few hours or more? This is still legal in the US and I've seen or heard nothing to contradict this major loophole in our regulations, which has always existed. Part 121 governs flying people or cargo. But with no revenue, all flights fall under Part 91, as with both general and corporate aviation.

[HotDog]

This three engines (on a four engine type) seems to be a Brit thing.


411A, your sarcasm is not far off the beam. The Royal Air Force Nimrod Maritime Reconnaissance, Comet derivative, regularly employs the three engine cruise technique when conditions permit it.

[delwy]

I recall many years ago DanAir applied to the ARB for approval to shut one engine down in cruise on the Comet, and the ARB politely ah...declined.
Smart, those ARB guys...then. Yes, they were. They had good grounds. If you were not being so smart you would have discovered why (a) there were good reasons for the application (significant power excess on the aircraft - hence the Nimrod practice referred to by the poster above), (b) issues, to do with icing as I recall it, which made the non-approval an appropriate response.

I also note the continual recurrance of a N. American "we know how to operate the B747 and we would not do as the BA crew did" line in this "debate". Everybody forgets that several U.S. airlines have been identified on previous threads as having flown B747 aircraft for very substantial time/distances on three engines. Never, as I recall it - indeed not once - has anybody denied this. Strange that. Maybe opinions in the U.S. have changed, but it does not change what happened.

[possel]

411A, your sarcasm is not far off the beam. The Royal Air Force Nimrod Maritime Reconnaissance, Comet derivative, regularly employs the three engine cruise technique when conditions permit it.

In fact, the RAF Nimrod regularly uses TWO engines only on task at low level! But they are Speys not the Comet's Avons

[Sonic Zepplin]

After quick review of post my thougts are not the engines I am concerned about its the software.

The level of control that pilots have given maintaining sytems has become a concern.

While automation has made a pilots job a bit easier, it has in some circumstances rendered each of us helpless in many cases.

I reference a article in the Wall Street Journal posted the 30 of May , where 500 million lines of computer code are now the basic operating principle of most modern aircraft and they have been found to be problomatic in many instances.

While ETOPS appears to be the wave of the future, rest assure that most modern jet engines are extremely reliable, its what manages them that are a concern, and believe me, its not the pilots.:ugh: :=

ETOPS will win in the long run, but not at the sacrifice of safety.

As for me crossing the Atlantic on 2 is as about as far as I would commit to ETOPS, as for the PACIFIC, forget about it, Give me 3 or 4 any day.

[Hand Solo]

Well Jon I guess your friend in the Far East had forgotten that we operate in a competitive environment and everything is done out of economic concerns. If you lose an engine on take off and it's not only safe to continue but a lot more economical you need a damn good reason not to. Interesting that your friend presumes to know exactly what was going through the mind of the crew and judge them on that basis despite never having met them. The AAIBs final report is now available here (http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/cms_resources/Boeing%20747-436,%20G-BNLG%2006-06.pdf) but I'll quote an extract from it:
type. The crew’s evaluation of the planned route showed that the
further aircraft performance degradation resulting from
a second engine loss would not be critical.
Thus, no evidence was found to show that the flight
continuation posed a significant increase in risk, and
the investigation establ ihed that the aircraft landed
with more than the required minimum fuel reserves.
A slightly different take on it from your friends "idiot" suggestion, and that comes from real experts, not self appointed ones.

One or two people have tried to contrast the decision by the CX crew to turn back to LHR with the decision of the BA crew to continue to LHR. That overlooks the not insignificant fact that in the event of a second engine failure the CX aircraft would not have made it over the mountains at Urumqi. Indeed a 744 might not either. Continuing on to HKG was never an option for this flight for that reason alone.

Ignition - I can only speak for the UK but operators can't attach a ferry flight to the end of a duty outside of the max duty regulations. Whether its a commercial flight or a ferry flight its still counted as a sector and the usual limits apply.

[jondc9]

hand solo

you have made my point for me ...economics ruled the decision.

also, while you quote somthing from the report, perhaps you should also indicate that the regulations which govern this operation should be reviewed to give operators a clearer understanding of what to do.

I seem to recall a post of mine indicating that this might just happen...further suggesting that new regulations might be written concerning this situation.

for the other poster:
also, for the record , if TWA ( RIP) had flown from LAX to England on 3 out of 4 my comments would be unchanged.

j

[Hand Solo]

I've done nothing of the sort Jon. Once the safe operation of the flight was assured then they elected to continue. The decision was safety led. Had the flight been unable to clear en-route terrain they'd have returned to LAX or diverted to an alternative BA station. No question about that. Once the safe onward flight was assured they then made an economic decision as every professional pilot does on a daily basis. We could all fly around with full fuel tanks every day but it wouldn't do the balance sheet any good. Are you saying economics is a dirty word and shouldn't enter the mind of a professional airline crew?

There is a recommendation that the operators are given clearer guidance, but in my opinion that stems purely from the FAAs obfuscation on the matter.

[jondc9]

hand solo

you obviously care about aviation and I appreciate that.

my entire point is that economics are taking too much priority in modern aviation...

consider the outsourcing of MX, without adequate oversight.

consider the concepts of "tankering" fuel or reducing fuel to minimums

consider the increasing scheduling situations which is leading to more fatigue among air crews

and even the emotional distress that aircrews and mechanics are under here in the US for taking 50% pay cuts and 75% cuts to pensions.


Obviously the BA crew took every precaution in making the flight on 3. Altering the route to a 2 engine etops route, and all.


But, if economics were completely out of the loop, would they have gone to LAX, or even SFO, DIA, ORD, or JFK before going across the pond?


In america we had a crash at CLT of a small Beech 1900, part of the problem was out of date weight tables ( not too many americans are still under 200 pounds with carry on luggage) AND outsourced MX by a mechanic who didn't rig the elevator cable correctly.

Economics are a factor to professional flight crews, BUT the Bean COUNTERS have made it too much of a factor. Pilots must stand up to the bean counters.

over to you

jon

[Hand Solo]

Jon - I genuinely believe that if economics were taken out of the picture the crew would still have considered continuing. Perhaps they would not be ecstatic about it because it involves a lot more work and nobody likes that. However we are all professionals up there and if something is safe and achievable within the regulations then electing not to do it because it involves more personal hard work tends to go against the grain.

[jondc9]

as pilots must consider safety and economics, so too must they consider the media treatment of their actions.

from today's Edinburgh Evening news, UK.

--------------------------------------------


Jumbo crew in emergency 'not trained'

BRITISH Airways pilots who carried on with a jumbo jet flight across the Atlantic despite an engine failure were not properly trained, according to an accident report.

The Air Accidents Investigation Branch said the pilots did not have sufficient knowledge of their plane's minimum fuel requirements.

The crew had to shut down an engine of their Boeing 747 after flames were seem coming out of it after take-off at Los Angeles. The pilots chose to carry on to London but, in the end, declared an emergency and diverted to Manchester.

[jondc9]

mike

I agree that the media can pick and choose and sometimes distort...when I read the report I came away with:

Authorities need to review regulations concerning this situation and make it clear what needs to be done.

Some problems with fdr

Problems in training crew for this situation with regards to the fuel system

better monitoring of the engine bearing wear.

But, as the article is what it is, it does reference the fuel problem which did cause a diversion...and if you are unsure of your fuel and you have a good airport in range, you should probably go there.

[SLFStuckInTheBack]

I know its not related to the BAA 744 3 eginge saga and I am a mere SLF!

How many places are there in the world that are 5 plus hours away from the nearest safe place to land?

[Smudger]

Off thread, perhaps, but the argument about 3/4 engines is a moot point in the case of the BA continuing across the pond having had a fire, albeit extinguished. The problem I have is how did the flight deck crew know what damage had occurred? As I see it they launched off across the water knowing that further problems could arise with possibly catastrophic results, but they did it all the same. I know that I will never fly long haul with BA unless someone can convince me that what they did was fully and unequivocably justified. I may be talking out of my arse but I look forward to being given an explanation as to why they did not just land back on. I'm sure that all you experts out there will put me straight. Moderators; moderate me if you see fit, I'm just saying what I think.

[Joetom]

Smudger.

Think word 9 on line 6 was about right in your last post.

Lots of info about said flt, we can talk about this till the cows come home.

May be the FAA will change the rules to say, whenever any faults occours on any aeroplane it will land ASAP, but 777 or 787 can fly on for another 3 or 4 hours because they use an ETOPS rule that is OK because the 767 made those rules the norm.

Interesting times ahead me thinks....???

[GGV]

Jon you quote a typical headline / content from a newspaper(!) above. It is clearly a misleading quote if you read the original materials. While this was immediately pointed out, nothing you say is going to change.

You have mounted a hobby horse and you are riding it to death. When you are on that hobby horse you come across a lot more like a media pundit, generating controversy, commenting on minimal information, adding instant (un)wisdom, etc. than you come across as an airline pilot.

I know that this perspective has been advanced to you before to no avail. But it bears repeating when I see someone like you quoting the "Edinburgh Evening News" in your support (the distortion being pointed out immedately by the following poster). If you showed a bit more familiarity with B744 certification .... less signs of equating all 4 engined aircraft .. and a host of other technical subjects your credibility might be higher.

[very_interested]

I mean the rest of us that are not pilots or directly connected with the commercial aircraft industry.

I understand the basics of it where you are not allowed to fly any route carrying passengers when that flight path will take you anywhere outside the area where you can get back if an engine quits. Seems reasonable to me.

It looks to me like the whole ETOPS strategy is an engine reliability issue. (engine and engine related support issue)

However as SLFStuckInTheBack asked "How many places are there in the world that are 5 plus hours away from the nearest safe place to land?" I looked at a map and find it hard to believe there are many routes commercial airliners fly 11 hours without any place to land that is within a couple of hours from whenever an engine quit.

Basically, my question is, Does an ETOPS certification mean that an aircraft is allowed to carry passengers only on a route that never exceeds the time it is ETOPS certified for to land at the nearest suitable runway after an engine fails , or does it mean that an ETOPS certified aircraft can head towards and land at a runway that it can safely reach within the time it is certified for?

Yes I know this overlaps another thread but can anyone enlighten me as to what the rule on ETOPS is. "Lose an engine, land at the nearest" or "lose an engine, land within the certified time"

[PAXboy]

very interestedIt looks to me like the whole ETOPS strategy is an engine reliability issue.Actually, it's an economic one! Engine power and reliability have improved to the point where the probabilty of failure now means you can fly further on two. That is cheaper to buy and operate. Everything is aimed at that point.

[BusyB]

"I have a friend who flys 744 for major airline in the Far East(no names please, but they speak english)."

I think I qualify for all but friend and having been on 744 in excess of 13yrs I have to AGAIN say that the BA crew worked through their problems and took the appropriate actions.

very_interested,
Etops requires in the event of an engine failure landing at the nearest suitable airport.

[Globaliser]

Off thread, perhaps, but the argument about 3/4 engines is a moot point in the case of the BA continuing across the pond having had a fire, albeit extinguished. The problem I have is how did the flight deck crew know what damage had occurred? As I see it they launched off across the water knowing that further problems could arise with possibly catastrophic results, but they did it all the same.From what you say, I suspect that you may (like me) be SLF. I'd strongly recommend reading the whole of the report (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources/Boeing%20747-436,%20G-BNLG%2006-06.pdf) (about 1.1 MB PDF). It's not long, and it shouldn't take more than an hour or so even if you're starting with no technical knowledge and you absorb all of the detail that's there. (I know the experts here could probably read and digest the whole thing in 15 minutes!)

The report deals with all the things that the crew investigated and considered before deciding that they didn't have to go straight back to LAX. (As the report says, a surge is not a particularly damaging event.) They did not immediately then "launch across the water". They continued across the continent, watching the aircraft carefully all the way - and there were plenty of diversion airfields along there if anything did crop up to suggest damage. They then re-evaluated the situation before beginning the oceanic crossing, to decide whether continuation was warranted.

So it wasn't either a hasty decision to continue, nor was it a once-and-for-all decision to either go or stop. I'm personally pleased to see that the AAIB finds no fault with the decision to continue.

[lomapaseo]

I am terribly confused about the intermixing of threads regarding Etops, 2 vs 4 engines and the BA over the water discussion.

I would be happy to contribute qualified understanding of the risks and technical ussues on either of these subjects separately in their own dedicated threads,

But I now defer until the intermixing of the discussion sorts itself out and once again everybody gets it off their chest.

[SeenItAll]

I know its not related to the BAA 744 3 eginge saga and I am a mere SLF!
How many places are there in the world that are 5 plus hours away from the nearest safe place to land?
See this link. http://gc.kls2.com/ It is to an extremely useful site that computes distances between airports and allows you to display world maps that show roughly what portions of the globe are impermissible for flight at various levels of ETOPS. In addition, if you click on the ETOPS Rule-Time text, you are linked to a very useful layman's description of ETOPS restrictions.
Does an ETOPS certification mean that an aircraft is allowed to carry passengers only on a route that never exceeds the time it is ETOPS certified for to land at the nearest suitable runway after an engine fails , or does it mean that an ETOPS certified aircraft can head towards and land at a runway that it can safely reach within the time it is certified for?
Yes I know this overlaps another thread but can anyone enlighten me as to what the rule on ETOPS is. "Lose an engine, land at the nearest" or "lose an engine, land within the certified time"
I believe the ETOPS requirement is that you must land at the nearest suitable airport once a triggering failure occurs. You are not permitted to overfly a suitable airport and continue to another airport that just happens to be reachable within the ETOPS time limit. But I defer to more knowledgable parties on this issue.

[SLFStuckInTheBack]

SeenItAll

Thank you for that link. I was right in my guess that 330 minutes means nigh on everywhere (other than Antarctica) is included.

On a previous thread (yes that one about the BA 744) some posters made comments that just because it something is possible and within SOPs etc. should it be allowed. I can see both sides of the argument - but (my background is in mathematics/computing) statistically the risk of the second engine failing will increase the longer an aircraft has to fly. The decision the FAA is making is that risk is small enough to take the chance - but the risk will have got bigger.

While most passengers will not care and are driven by cheaper fares, I will continue to pay extra to fly my family and I on airlines that use 747's or 340's. The risk of losing 3 engines in 5 hours is much smaller - and when it comes to my family - then that is worth any extra.

[barit1]

I trust you also avoid driving your own automobile whenever you can, eschew skiing, snowmobiles, motorcycles, and the kitchen in your own home.

It's amazing to me that some people cannot evaluate comparitive risks when they are staring them in the face. :ugh:

[SLFStuckInTheBack]

Barit1,

As I get older I have gotten more conservative when it comes to risk. So hope you do not find it too amazing but... I drive a BIG Volvo - out of choice - and have not been on a motorcycle for 30 years. I tend to avoid the kitchen when ever possible as I can mess up boiling eggs (only last week I had one explode - I was finding bits of egg all over the place for days!!!!)

When it comes to "evaluate comparitive risks". The people who are best at that are the actuaries along with the accountants and lawyer. They weigh out the risk of the accident happening versus any cost of likely payouts – that’s business. I seem to remember an automobile with a serious design fault (exploding gas tank when involved in an accident). The manufacture felt it was cheaper to settle any legal costs than recall and fix the vehicle in question. I don’t think I would sell my Volvo for one of those – although the risk of something bad happenings is also very small.

Am I wrong in thinking that flying on just one engine for an extra 60+ minutes would not increase the risk just a little? It might be very very small - but there must be an increase!

Taking economics out of the equation - would I prefer to be on a flight with my family - on a 744 that suffers an engine failure 180 minutes from the nearest safe landing or a 777? Although both would be perfectly safe - my preference is for the 744, because I feel (and it may be irrational) that it is safer. At the moment I have the choice - and exercise it in favour of BA and Virgin. In 20 years time I might not be so lucky - so I shall enjoy it while I can.

[SeenItAll]

SLFStuckInTheBack: My background is also in mathematics/statistics/economics. One's probability of dying from any cause over a year is 6.37 per 1000 for persons between 45 and 54 years of age. Mortality in modern passenger flight is about 1 in 5 million. Thus you are about 31850 times more likely to die from some other cause over the year than a flight accident. Even if you fly 100 times a year, your likelihood of dying from other causes is 318.5 times as large as in a plane crash.

I, for one, don't give the choice of Boeing vs. Airbus, 2 engines vs. 4 engines a second thought from a safety concern when flying. As barit1 points out, so many other things are much more risky.

[barit1]

An excellent blog (http://liberalorder.typepad.com/the_liberal_order/) on public policy and relative risk. Well thought out, methinks.

[biggls]

Ok if the FAA aprove of 330 min ETOPS how long will it be before thay aprove the construction of 240 min singel engin short hall AC?

[barit1]

When propulsion failure becomes a truly negligible cause of SE accidents, I can see the likelihood of this happening. :8

[barit1]

As barit1 points out, so many other things are much more risky.

Here's a guy who was a private pilot as well as an outstanding engineer (http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060611/EDIT02/606110305/1090) who ultimately worried about the wrong thing.