Opinions please: Quad and Twin shut downs
 

I am not a pilot but do work in the industry and a conversation with a colleague suggested that a rough engine on a quad was more likely to be shut down than on a twin.

I am interested in the opion of pilots whether they are more inclined to try and keep a twin engine going longer before shut down?

Any help appreciated.

thanks

If it needs shutting down - it needs shutting down. No difference whether it's 2,3 or 4 engines.

I would be inclined to delay as long as possible, however, if it's the only one....

Having flown quad turboprops and twin piston, turboprop and jets on the 4 eng we would shut one down if we had even the slightest inkling of a problem. Better to protect the engine and save maintenance costs.
On the twins we keep em running,even if only at idle, whenever possible.

No argument about the reason for IFSD, however the data shows little to no difference in maintenance costs to repair for quads vs twins following a removal for cause.

Perhaps a pilot may be more inclined to shutdown one out of 3 engines after reaching altitude simply because he doesn't have to deal with it's symptoms and monitoring throughout the rest of the flight.

Military Maritime Patrol A/C

Many Maritime Quads are set up to close down 2 for cruise and long haul.

More fuel efficient to operate two at higher power than 4 at lesser.

Indeed shut the engine down if it needs to be. In BA (I do not know about other airlines' policies) If a B747 has a dodgy engine, which under normal circumstances would be shutdown in flight, the crews are encouraged to keep it ticking over at idle. The reason being that their B767s have the same engine type and any in flight shutdown on a B747 effects the ETOPS status of the B767. More than a certain number of in flight shutdowns then ETOPs is degraded, say from 180 mins to 120mins.