Twin engined flights over long Oceanic routes

[gsora]

Somebody please reassure me about the long Oceanic routes on twin engined airliners.

I have heard of the ETOPS rules but do not entirely understand them.

Is it true that if an engine fails then the aircraft may possibly have to fly up to 750 miles to the nearest airport?

[SpamFritters]

These flights happen many times every day!

Think 757, 777, 767.... I for one have flown over the Atlantic in all three ( I think) and so far have not gone plumeting to the ocean bed...

There is a thing where people think that 4 engines is the only safe way over ocean routes... maybe this is because of Virgins slogan:
"4 engines 4 longhaul" or whatever it is...

Well even they have gone against what they preach and have placed an order for the new 787s!
And guess what... they are two engined beasts =)

If your worried you could wear the life jacket throughout the flight.... at least you would get attention from the hostess :}

But seriously it will be fine!
(but i do always check that my lifejacket is there and in place by having a quick feel! - anybody else do this or do they just pressume that everyone have done their job...?)

[Final 3 Greens]

ETOPS

Engines

Turning

Or

Passengers

Swim

[Captb747]

There is a thing where people think that 4 engines is the only safe way over ocean routes... maybe this is because of Virgins slogan:
"4 engines 4 longhaul" or whatever it is...

Well even they have gone against what they preach and have placed an order for the new 787s!


Just to clarify. I believ it was an Airbus slogan and not a virgin slogan although it did appear on only VS aeroplanes.... and RB did used to preach about it :ok:

[gsora]

Not very reassuring yet,

I have seen the vid featuring the Ethiopean owned airliner forced landing on water, it fell to bits!

The chance of being alive to use the life jacket seem remote.

Hopefully some of the airline pilots could explain the ETOPS rules.

[Bealzebub]

Yes be very reassured.

In the 60,s and 70's twin engine jetliners were designed and optimised for short haul routes. Aircraft such as the Caravelle, BAC 111, DC9 and Boeing 737 were designed to fly between city pairs between 100 miles and 1500 miles apart. However with the advent of new technology high bypass engines, the need for 3 or 4 engines on medium sized longhaul aircraft and more recently on large longhaul aircraft became largely redundant.

In the 1980's with the introduction of the Boeing 757 and the jointly developed Boeing 767, there was a new breed of twin engine jetliner that had the range to fly 3500 miles (757) up to 5500 miles (767). This opened up transcontinental and trans oceanic routes to a new breed of twin engine airplane. Previously the rules for flying twin engine aircraft over the sea had restricted them to no more than 60 - 90 minutes flying time from the nearest airport, which given their range was very rarely a problem. Some countries (including the USA) also had very scant requirements concerning the level of safety equipment that had to be carried on board. Life jackets could often be substituted by seat cushions as floatation devices provided the distance flown from shore fell within the regulations. Given the range of the new generation of twin engine jetliners this would clearly be unacceptable, and together with a whole range of other safety related issues (including engine reliability, fire suppression, emergency electrical generation and additional system backups), a set of new rules known as ETOPS (EROPS) was born.

Extended (R)ange (T)win engine OPerationS provides for a whole raft of rules that these aircraft have to comply with to ensure an acceptable and high level of safety. The distance that can aircraft can fly over the sea ( or land) is governed by the time at any point an engine might potentially fail and the time it would take on the remaining engine to divert to an adequate and suitable airport. That is an airport that has adequate runways and other facilities, and where the weather is suitable. This distance as far as ETOPS s concerned is normaly 120 minutes, 138 minutes, and 180 minutes. Sometimes it can be higher and in future generations of aircraft it very likely will be higher. This time is based on the single engine flying speed of the aircraft, which surprisingly is still 80 to 85% of the normal cruising speed. So for a Boeing 757/767 for example it is around 400 kts (460 mph). That means when flying 180 minutes ETOPS the aircraft may fly a route that keeps it within 1380 miles of a suitable diversion airfield. In other words it can a fly a route that is 2760 miles between suitable airfields. Over the North Atlantic and most of the Pacific that leaves very few holes.

When planning an ETOPS or indeed any longhaul flight there are 3 potential emergency scenarios that have a major role in fuel planning. The first is engine failure in accordance with route or the ETOPS rules, the second is a depressurisation and a descent to 10,000ft, and the third is an engine failure and a depressurisation and descent to 10,000ft. Surprisingly perhaps, from a fuel point of view the worst case scenario is the second, the depressurisation and descent to 10,000ft. At this altitude (and it would be required) the fuel burns are very high. This is especially so on a 3 or 4 engine aircraft, and to that end the problem may be as bad if not worse for 3 or 4 engine aircraft than for ETOPS aircraft.

The degree of engine reliability for ETOPS certified aircraft and their high bypass tubofans is extremely high and the loss of one power unit is very rare. The loss of 2 engines due to non common events (fuel starvation or flying through volcanic ash etc.) is infinitesimally small.

In addition to this, there are much higher planning weather minima laid down for ETOPS flights, Crew have additional certification. The aircraft has to carry extra safety equipment, and the aircraft has to have additional ETOPS related systems and system components which must be serviceable prior to and during the ETOPS segment of each and every flight.

I have being flying ETOPS over the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans for the last 22 years and only ever had to divert once and even that was related to a slow leak in an Oxygen system. ETOPS is extremely reliable and a normal, common and routinely employed method of oceanic flying today. You should be very relaxed and very confident on your flight.

[chornedsnorkack]

No, it is an underestimate.

An airplane with 1 engine out travels at about 400 knots.

So, ETOPS 120 means 800 miles on one engine. But there are higher Etopses than Etops 120. Such as Etops 138, Etops 180 and Etops 207. Etops 180 means 1200 miles, Etops 207 means 1380 miles. And Etops 180 is the notional no wind range. One plane actually did fly 192 minutes on one engine because of foul wind.

USA is since 1st of February offering higher Etops as well, but I believe no one has yet taken it up.

[tartare]

Be reassured by the fact that when you look at mean time between failures... jet engines are some of the most reliable mechanical devices ever made by human beings.
They run for decades in power stations, power ships across oceans.
Thousands of airliners are in the air right now with no risk of them stopping.
They will continue to run (roughly) even after a blade has snapped off (itself a rare event).
They can stand massive ingestions of water without the flame going out; birdstrikes - a high degree of damage, and still function.
The technology involved is amazing.
You should actually be far more worried about the two soft machines sitting in the two front-most seats making a mistake.... aircraft nearly always crash beacuse of brain failure, not plane failure.

[gsora]

Thanks Bealzebub.

For your detailed and reassuringly informed reply.

Perhaps I will fly in a twin across the Atlantic after all.

Maybe my fears stem from having flown as passenger in the venerable Avro Shackleton MR3 which had 6 engines (including two Vipers) during my RAF days.


Cheers :ok:

[SpamFritters]

If twins where not as say have quads...
Why the hell would they be flying these routes multiple times a day?:bored:

Why would there be something like 650 777s in service without taking into account of the 757s and 767s and 330s etc.

:rolleyes:

Point being.
You will be safe..

[BelArgUSA]

Old timer pilot flying with 4 motors, here...
So, nobody will convince me, or most of my colleagues.
Oh, granted, ETOPS is a rather safe concept.
But I am entitled to my opinion. I am a pilot, not a hero.
xxx
The more the engines you have, the more likely you are to get problems.
So, correct, a 747 has twice as many chances of having to shut one down.
Has happened to me a few times. Real failure, or precautionary shut-down.
Each time, we continued... to destination. Passengers not even aware.
Three engines remaining is no problem...
Even ferried (yes, takeoff...) with an engine out a few times.
xxx
Sure, high level of reliablility and excellent maintenance on ETOPS machines.
Only two motors to worry about. Half the likelyhood of problems.
But I would not dream of driving a 767 to KEF one hour or so on one engine.
With KEF visibility at minimum RVR and icebergs with smiling pinguins under us.
xxx
The best solution is... 3 engines... best trade.
For them too, they can continue towards destination, or elect to come back.
I flew 727s... I did feel safe overwater with them.
xxx
Think about the A-330 glider to the Azores...
If a plane ever ditches because an engine is out... it will be a twin.
And 2,000 threads by Pprune accident investigators, that day...
It will not be a 1011 or a A-340, a 747 or a A-380...
Maybe airport security will permit you to have sharkfins in your carry-on...
The way airlines go nowadays, they will find a way to operate single engines with single pilot soon.
Personally, I dont care - Soon to be retired, and counting the weeks.
xxx
:)
Happy contrails (or contrail if 1 engine is out on your aeroplanes...) -

[Hartington]

When TWA first started flying 767s across the Atlantic (LGW/STL) I was very doubtful. In fact, they hosted me on a visit to their computer centre in Kansas City and I refused to use the 767 route and insisted on going via Chicago. Full marks to them that they permitted me to do that.

Then my brother in law (a BA pilot) switched from 747s to 757s and subsequently dual qualified on 767s. Talking to him I came to better understand the rules and reasons why twins were now allowed across the oceans. I think the 2 that stand out for me are (1) the exceptional reliability of modern engines (2) a difference in rules between ETOPS flight planning and the rules used by triples and quads - as I understand it a twin has to be within x minutes of an airport that is predicted to be open whereas a triple/quad simply has to have nominated alternates (there is no requirement for them to be open). Add in various rules about detection of hold fires and how to extinguish them and an enhanced maintenance regime and I now fly twins with equanimity.

Longest twin flight so far has been BUE/LGW on a BA777.

[Contacttower]

Some idiots in General Aviation even dare to cross the Atlantic with one engine...:eek: after all...it doesn't know it's over water...

To be fair BelArgUSA if one is going to run out of fuel (in the case of the two twin gliders I can remember) then it doesn't really matter how many engines you have, especially if you leave cross-feed valves open :=.

[fendant]

After both engines on Boeing 777 BA 038 into Heathrow failed to respond to controls last week and stopped providing thrust simultaneously, I am NOT flying twins over long water legs in the future.

Everybody told us that this thing could never happen ( like Bealzebub), reality caught up with us. :eek:

At least you have the 747, A 340 and in the future A 380 alternatives.

I will preferably book these flights ( and I would even be prepared to pay a couple of bucks extra for it ).
Believe me, 4 engines DO have a higher intrinsic reliability.

So I totally agree with Belarg , > 3 engines = safety ; twins only make beancounters and shareholders happy.

Frank

BelargUSA quote: "If a plane ever ditches because an engine is out... it will be a twin". I agree

[perkin]

After both engines on Boeing 777 BA 038 into Heathrow failed to respond to controls last week and stopped providing thrust simultaneously, I am NOT flying twins over long water legs in the future.

Total knee-jerk reaction when the full facts are not yet known.

One would assume that if whatever fault caused the BA 777 incident were to occur on an identical triple or quad (apart from the number of engines of course), all 3 or 4 engines would've died anyway, so its meaningless having 2, 3, 4, 6 or 8 engines...same result...

4 engines DO have a higher intrinsic reliability

This is also incorrect as ETOPS requires a proven level of engine reliability - any single engine from a twin is inherently more reliable than that of a quad. In other words, my interpretation of the ETOPS principle are that you are as likely to have a double engine failure on a quad as you are a single failure on a twin.

[PPRuNe Radar]

Not very reassuring yet,

I have seen the vid featuring the Ethiopean owned airliner forced landing on water, it fell to bits!

It would tend to do that when there is a hijacker in the cockpit who has severely wounded or killed the crew :hmm:

[chornedsnorkack]

At the end of the day, 777 diversions do occur, and tend to strand the passengers and the frames in interesting places like Irkutsk.

Or how´d you like to spend some weeks on Easter Island, because the wreck of your 777 sits in the dead middle of the Mataveri runway and no one is getting out or in till some watership shows up over the oceans?

[Bealzebub]

Fendant,

What I actually said was a factual reply with a quick historical background, based on my 22 years of actually doing the job. I can assure you that there have been more accounts of simultaneous engine failure on 4 engine jets where the common event has been fuel starvation or contaminent ingestion and to this end it doesn't matter how many engines you have.

Another point to bear in mind is that 3 and 4 engine jetliners do not have the 3rd and or 4th engines as spares or for safety reasons. They have them because they need them. During certification ( and in service) an aircraft is required to be able to lose one of its power units at a critical speed and still be able ( at its maximum take off weight) to be able to safely climb away. For a twin engine aircraft ( with particular relevance to the ETOPS twins we are talking about), this means that having lost half of its power it can still climb away safely. That is not the case necessarily with a 4 engine aircraft which might need 75% of its available output to climb away safely.

Believe me, 4 engines DO have a higher intrinsic reliability.

I cannot believe you, because I have flown 4 engine aircraft, and they didn't. On what do you base this statement ?

If a plane ever ditches because an engine is out... it will be a twin". I agree

Why ? For the reasons I have already stated in the first paragraph a twin with an engine failure and a 50% power loss still has to meet the same minimum performance criteria as a 3 or 4 engine jet with a 25% power loss. The latter doesn't have the extra engines for "comfort", it has them because it needs them.

I respect your opinion, choice and prejudices, but they are simply not rooted in fact. The accident at Heathrow airport is subject to an investigation and there has been no determination as to the cause. When the cause is determined it might well be the case that the common event would have been equally true to a 3 or 4 engine aircraft, we will just have to be patient and wait for the findings.

The aircraft you quote (747, A380, A340) have 4 engines because they need 4 engines to meet certification. The 747 has been a fine aircraft, but its role has now largely been replaced by the 777. The A340 has been outsold by its stablemate the A330. The A380 has 4 engines because there is no existing powerplant available to enable such a heavy aircraft to operate on two. Nevertheless to save weight thrust reversers have been stripped from 2 of the 4 engines. This aircraft is now and in the future going to be massively outsold by the smaller Boeing 787 and its own stablemate the A350 series.

Even now, but particularly in the coming years, if you will only fly overwater on 4 engine aircraft, your choice of destinations will be very limiting indeed. ETOPS is proven safe, has a 23 year unblemished safety record, is a product of modern technology and is here to stay.

In summary you can labour under whatever prejudice or opinion you choose. the threads author wanted reassurance on the safety of twin engine ETOPS aircraft over oceanic routes. My reply was to truthfully and factually supply that reassurance. BELARGUSA's reply was by his own admission slightly tongue-in-cheek and based on accounts of his favourite aircraft. If you don't accept the factual reality then that is fine, however your argument is fairly devoid of actual or factual reference and based on faith ( "Believe me").

[James 1077]

I've flown across the Atlantic numerous times on 2 & 4 engined planes as simple SLF and, even with the additional security of ETOPS approval, I do feel better looking out of my window and seeing 2 engines hung under the wing.

So where I have a choice and providing it isn't much more expensive I will always pay for the 4 engined option if available.

And, even though it is early days and a report isn't out yet, the BA 777 twin engine out at LHR has meant that I will keep this policy going for a while yet!

[chornedsnorkack]

During certification ( and in service) an aircraft is required to be able to lose one of its power units at a critical speed and still be able ( at its maximum take off weight) to be able to safely climb away. For a twin engine aircraft ( with particular relevance to the ETOPS twins we are talking about), this means that having lost half of its power it can still climb away safely. That is not the case necessarily with a 4 engine aircraft which might need 75% of its available output to climb away safely.

Except that twins, even ETOPS twins are not required to climb away as safely as three and four engined planes. 4 engined plane with 1 engine out is required to climb at 3,0 % gradient. A 2 engined plane with 1 engine out is allowed to climb at only 2,4 %.

The aircraft you quote (747, A380, A340) have 4 engines because they need 4 engines to meet certification. The 747 has been a fine aircraft, but its role has now largely been replaced by the 777. The A340 has been outsold by its stablemate the A330. The A380 has 4 engines because there is no existing powerplant available to enable such a heavy aircraft to operate on two.

A340 did not need 4 engines. Engines were available to power MD11, which still is heavier than 340. Nor does A380 need 4 engines, because there are existing powerplants available to enable such a heavy aircraft to operate on three.

[Bealzebub]

Except that twins, even ETOPS twins are not required to climb away as safely as three and four engined planes. 4 engined plane with 1 engine out is required to climb at 3,0 % gradient. A 2 engined plane with 1 engine out is allowed to climb at only 2,4 %.

The operative words being "allowed to". All the ETOPS twins that I have figures for exceed this comfortably. However this is the Passenger & SLF forum and the discussion has been tailored away from a "tech log" discussion deliberately to keep to the point of the authors question and subsequent replies.

A340 did not need 4 engines. Engines were available to power MD11, which still is heavier than 340. Nor does A380 need 4 engines, because there are existing powerplants available to enable such a heavy aircraft to operate on three.

Again bearing in mind my previous comments, the 330 and 340 airframes were similar with smaller lighter engines on the earlier models of 340. It had 4 engines because it needed 4 (some of my colleagues who fly them would say it actually needs 5 !). The ones with two larger engines were called A330's. The 380 flying on 3 or 4 is a moot argument since (it wasn't designed with 3 and) the point is still the same.

[radeng]

As statistically, you are more likely to get killed on the motorway to or from the airport (especially the way some foreign taxi drivers drive!), I don't worry about ETOPS. The chances from a problem there are far less.

[TightSlot]

Oddly, I find myself having to say this for the second time this week.

PPRuNe's USP, so to speak, is that it enables you to have your questions, (such as this one) answered by somebody who actually does the job. In this case, Bealzebub, a well respected PPRuNe member of long-standing and extensive flying experience on commercial jet aircraft. He has taken the time and trouble to provide two lengthy answers, the first of which might almost be described as definitive.

You are all free to ignore his comments or if you prefer, to disagree privately: However, to visit PPRuNe and argue the toss on matters technical with a technical expert whose job it is to do the very task in question is frankly, unwise, unless you have extensive experience flying large commercial jet aircraft. Imagine that the posted conversation was taking place without anonymity, in front of your friends, and consider whether your own position might become embarrassing?

Ultimately, there will be no incentive for other experts to respond in this forum if they are aware that their comments will simply be disregarded: It can be in none of ourr interests for this to happen.

[radeng]

Bealzebub,

I may be wrong, but it seems to me that if you have an occurrence such as volcanic ash or fuel contamination, you are just as likely to be in the deep dodo with 4 engines as 2. Possibly more, since with ash, you have 4 to relight rather than two........Also, don't the records show that ETOPS has proved itself over the last 20 years to be as safe as 4 engines?

I'm not so sure about things like food poisoning and even just Montezuma's revenge caused by less than perfect on board hygiene - I have a feeling those are far more prevalent than engine failure. I may be wrong, but what do you think?

[Bealzebub]

Yes you are right.

It has to be said that such occurrences are also extremely unlikely, but nevertheless if the fuel is stopped from getting to the engines or runs out, it doesn't matter how many engines you have they will all stop. If you clog the engines with volcanic ash or flocks of birds etc. they may also stop.

ETOPS has had an extremely good safety record since its introduction and although there have been numerous infight engine shutdowns, there have never been 2 where the common cause was not something that that would have just as equally affected a 3 or 4 engine aircraft. The two examples that spring to mind are the Air Transat A330 that lost power due to fuel starvation, and the BA 747 that lost power due to volcanic ash ingestion. I recall there might have been a KLM 747 which had a similar occurence over Alaska some years back. However had the A330 in question had 4 engines or the 747 had 2, the causal result would have been the same.

Food poisioning whilst a consideration and there are procedures in place to prevent it affecting both pilots is certainly more common than engine failure. The loss of one engine during the ETOPS segment (without laying my hands on the statistics) is similar to the chances of winning the lottery jackpot. The loss of two engines would be like winning the lottery jackpot two weeks running. It is not theoretically impossible, but very unlikely. I suspect the joy of the experience would differ enormously as well ! :)

[fendant]

Bealzebub,

thanks for your well founded comments!
I agree that so far ETOPS have a very good safety record and that modern engine condition monitoring allows you to divert before the problem really affects flight safety. Quality manufacturing of jet engine components ( my area of expertise ) has definitely contributed to today's vastly improved engine reliability. Even more will come from current development programs.
Let's wait and see, why both RR powerplants on BA 38 refused to obey to the thrust increase command.

Frank

[BelArgUSA]

Hola Bealzebub -
xxx
I do agree to some of your comments - In particular regarding the higher level of maintenance in today's airplanes and engines. But I am very concerned about the "bugs" you could still get with electronics and the automatic control they have over aircraft systems.
xxx
I value my flight engineers on the 747-200s... In the fuel starvation case of the Air Transat landing in Lajes, Azores, little was available as info to the crew except that the tank feeding an engine was getting empty at an abnormal rate. A flight engineer in a 747 would see a tank capacity gage going down at a fast rate, would never transfer fuel into that tank. And with 4 motors, who cares if that engine does flame-out by starvation. If remaining with 3 engines, we will just advise ATC, go some 4,000 feet lower, check that level's performance data, advise the company, and ask them if they want us to continue (or go back)... I am not criticizing the Air Transat crew, they did all their best (and a masterpiece of a glide demonstrating superior airmanship) - but as a training manager - I hate the modern concepts of "going to a check-list without much thoughts"... I sign the procedures revisions for the glass cockpit airplanes that we have, but I ask the fleet managers to feed-in their opinions. In my airline, I only know the planes we have from "last century", 747-200, 737-200, MD-80 and A-310s... For the 747-400 and A-340, I say "...su decisión, Che..." - your decisions...!
xxx
When we have a problem, we put 2 or 3 heads together in trying to undertand a source of problem, before jumping to today's concept of "what is the procedure" and blindly follow the "abnormals" of check-lists.
xxx
By chance we have 3 heads and 6 eyes (most often) in our A-310s and 747.400s. In our 747-400s, most of our "cruise co-pilots" are actually ex-F/Es from the 747-200, who continue F/E style duties for departure and arrival, and were trained to serve as F/O 747-400 in cruise. As much as I am against twins doing ETOPS, I fought for our "third guy", who are required, anyway, by the flight and duty time limitations we have.
xxx
Despite driving a 747 Classic, I sat down in ETOPS ground school and I have to agree I learned a lot. We apply much of what I learned in the 747s, in case of the loss of TWO engines, which then, requires to be landed ASAP on the nearest runway. We often cross the Amazon jungle/basin with 737 and MD-80s, and these guys need the education of getting to a safe landing somewhere. You dont want to feed the jaguars or the crocodiles of Brazil, anymore than the sharks between Europe and the Americas...
xxx
Old farts like me die hard. I recall the days of my DC-6 captains who had recently transitioned to 727 jets. in the late 1960s/early 1970s... You face the same wall with me with your "2 pilot crews" and "overwater twins"... Like some gentlemen SLF mentioned their preference for many engines for an overwater flight, I do same. When I am at times SLF myself, with other airlines and if my kids travel, I see them to be booked on 747s or MD-11s if they travel overwater.
xxx
Call it a phobia if you want to. I just name this "my aviation philosophy"... and I have others.
xxx
:)
Happy contrails

[gsora]

Thank you all for your comments and advice.

I did not realise that I had opened a subject that was so complex.

I thank Bealzebub for his obviously informed reply, the one definitive reply to my questions.

So it seems there is a wide opinion on the pro`s and cons of twin jet Oceanic flights.

Having studied the replys and opinions I think a four jet flight to the USA would serve my fears the best.

When do they make a six!?

Once again thank you all.

[chornedsnorkack]

When do they make a six!?

Occasionally.

Latecoere 631 has 6 engines. As do many Convair B-36-s, including XC-99/Model 37. As does Boeing B-47. As well as Antonov An-225.

There are also planes with 8 engines. Like Hugher Hercules and Boeing B-52. There are planes with 10 engines. Like Saunders-Roe Princesses and many Convair B-36s - 6 turning, 4 burning. There is a plane with 12 engines, too - Dornier X.

[radeng]

I've done over 1 million miles on BA and over 1 million miles on AA in the last 29 years. A lot of those on ETOPS. I'm happy to continue on ETOPS flights.

The only thing to put me off is if the character in the right hand front seat isn't happy going, then neither am I!!!

Provided he doesn't want to srgue with me about the safety of using mobile 'phones. portable GPS etc. I don't argue with his professional ability, and I don't expect him to argue about mine. If he does, I don't trust his flying capabilities....

[Bealzebub]

The only thing to put me off is if the character in the right hand front seat isn't happy going, then neither am I!!!

Do a lot of First officers express this sentiment to you ?


Provided he doesn't want to srgue with me about the safety of using mobile 'phones. portable GPS etc. I don't argue with his professional ability, and I don't expect him to argue about mine. If he does, I don't trust his flying capabilities....

I am not sure if you still mean the First officer, but either way his flying ability is not correlated to your "professional ability". The command function would properly require that all passengers comply with the rules and regulations that make up the conditions of carriage, and if that means no cell phones, GPS's and other electronic ornaments then so be it. There is no argument on board, it is an instruction. If any passenger feels they do not want to comply, then they should find another more acceptable mode of transport.

[radeng]

How many times does the FO want to go if the LHS doesn't? I should have said LHS, not RHS....

There's another thread about mobile phones. There you find that professionals in the field of RF engineering, EMC, and avionics are disagreeing with pilots on the subject of the safety of using mobile 'phones. The professionals are saying 'No way, switch the **** off' while some pilots are saying 'We've never had a problem so there isn't one'.

There's a damn good reason for having the things switched off and anyone who doesn't like it, should, in my opinion, be ejected forthwith - no matter what altitude the aircraft is. Parachutes not optional.....

An interesting question Bealzebub, is why ATPL get tested every year and doctors and bus drivers and ambulance drivers (but paramedics do, I believe) etc don't.....and once an engineer qulaifies, he (or she) doesn't get retested...

[gsora]

Hi chornedsnorkack,

I was really refering to pax jets, incidently you missed out the Avro Shackleton MR3.3 (4 turning 2 burning) have flown in several (70`s)

[Contacttower]

I was really refering to pax jets, incidently you missed out the Avro Shackleton MR3.3 (4 turning 2 burning) have flown in several (70`s)

Not quite six but some Tridents had five if you include the 'booster engine' and the APU...

[gsora]

Hi contacttower,
The Shack MR3.3 had six, 4 griffons + 2 Vipers =6 :ok:

The Vipers were used for takeoff supplementary to the Griffons and occasionally in the cruise.

The Vipers were mounted in the rear of the outboard Griffon nacelles, they got their air from below via retracting doors that were angled to scoop the airflow into the intake.

Takeoffs at high weight were long and noisy, ah but the smell of avgas, rubber and leather! Not to mention the chemical loo. :eek:

Nav by Loran and sextant.

[bealine]

I had never give the matter much thought and I have crossed the pond more times than I can remember. I've been on the cushions on 747's twice, 777's more often than not and a solitary 767 and a lonesome 757 - all Seattle's finest craftsmanship with aero engines that Boeing have tried, tested and approved for use on said airframe before going into production!

If Boeing are happy, the British Airways Flight Crews and Continental Airlines Flight Crews (and any other airline's Flight Crews that might offer me a lift) are happy with two-engined machines flying across the world's oceans then so am I!

Usually, AFAIAW, the aircraft follow routes that don't take them too far from land anyway - after all, Boeing can deliver their ubiquitous short-range 737 aircraft anywhere worldwide through clever route planning and, for some useless information, a 737 takes off somewhere on the planet every 40 seconds on average!

[Oneil]

Very interesting thread- but just wondered if someone in the know could give me a rough answer to this question.

If you were to fly from say manchester to Vegas in a twin engined aircraft- what duration of that flight (10hours?) is actually over the water?

thanks

[Andy_S]

The rough answer would be approximately 50%. However, it's difficult to be more precise because it would be very much dependent on the track the aircraft took over the Atlantic.

For example, if it was assigned a relatively northerly track, you may find yourself flying over southern Greenland, reducing the proportion of your journey over water.

Also, bear in mind that some of the flight would be over Hudson Bay; over water yes, but not actually oceanic as such and always close to land.

Finally, remember that even when you are over the Atlantic, a lot of the time you are closer to a diversion airport than you realise; at various points in your journey Scotland, Northern Ireland, Iceland, Greenland and eastern Canada are no great distance away.

[BelArgUSA]

Flight from Manchester to Vegas, likely to be about 4 hrs over Oceanic areas.
Total time of flight 11 hrs.
:)
Happy contrails