FAA to conclude 2 engines as safe as 3 or 4

[20driver]

FAA mandates

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by jondc9

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.
With Davies in chage of certification, nothing slipped by...
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]

Originally Posted by HotDog

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]

ETOPS extension

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.

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 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.