Virgin Scaremongering
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think your all missing the main point here, does'nt matter at the end of the day whether you operate twin engined aircraft or those with four engines. What matters is that they are maintained to the highest levels, no short cuts and no risks. Companies must start to realise that although engineering departments are a huge drain on airlines funds, they are there for a purpose and without them being run to a high standard the airline is not only risking passenger safety but the also the complete operation of the airline.Lets hope the bosses of various airlines wake up and realise that although we need to be a profit making industry we also need to have the manpower to remain safe. Without consumer confidence we will not remain profitable.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Flare Damit - do you know something about that A340 that Airbus doesn'tt when you say "His only reason for 4 engined a/c is that he's got a massive lease cost on the 400,s..." 
Easy as well to spot the reggie spotters on this thread vs those that actually know something about the industry.
Hands up all those who think ETOPS certification is something you can send off for with a couple of box tops from Kelloggs Corn Flakes? Actually, it takes a long time of reliable twin operations to convince the airworthiness authorities that it should be granted - and it's a very, very expensive process to go through and maintain. That's why with many airlines only a small portion of their fleet are specifically dedicated to ETOPS ops - and frankly, by the time you factor in the added costs there are few savings to be made over similar multi-engined aircraft.
On the subject of advertising, who here recalls the Airbus ads for the A340 showing a very stormy Pacific and a strapline saying "Aren't you glad you're sitting between four engines?"
Just the thing you want to see when you're on a CX (or TG, or GA) A330...
Easy as well to spot the reggie spotters on this thread vs those that actually know something about the industry.
Hands up all those who think ETOPS certification is something you can send off for with a couple of box tops from Kelloggs Corn Flakes? Actually, it takes a long time of reliable twin operations to convince the airworthiness authorities that it should be granted - and it's a very, very expensive process to go through and maintain. That's why with many airlines only a small portion of their fleet are specifically dedicated to ETOPS ops - and frankly, by the time you factor in the added costs there are few savings to be made over similar multi-engined aircraft.
On the subject of advertising, who here recalls the Airbus ads for the A340 showing a very stormy Pacific and a strapline saying "Aren't you glad you're sitting between four engines?"
Just the thing you want to see when you're on a CX (or TG, or GA) A330...
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Creepy Crawley
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To get back to the original point about RB saying his airline is safer than BA, where exactly does he say that? All he has said is that passengers prefer flying on 4-engined aeroplanes. That's his opinion to which he is entitled.
If the competition are getting all bruised about it, that's their problem, is it not?
If the competition are getting all bruised about it, that's their problem, is it not?
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: U.K
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most passengers don't have a clue how many engines are strapped onto the aircraft they are flying in. Personally, I prefer to operate a four engined a/c for the reasons expressed before, in that a single failure is of almost deep irrelevance. As a passenger I can't get that excited, and if a 767 is all that's on offer to Canada or the U.S. then I'll take it.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Ether Space
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes GUVNER Those in the know would say a company is not just "health and safety", but primarily profit. Now if he could get out of these binding lease deals he most certainly would, or arrange them to be less expensive and that would mean either B777,more A340,s and even A330,3. Its business simple as that.
Those in the know would say a company is not just "health and safety", but primarily profit. Now if he could get out of these binding lease deals he most certainly would, or arrange them to be less expensive and that would mean either B777,more A340,s and even A330,3. Its business simple as that.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i think most of us are missing the point,
the most important point is security and if a potential highjacker can come aboard with a knife or any other weapon, having four or two engines becomes irrelevant.
and i also believe the best way to make sure that money grabbing airlines who put profit before safety should be named and shamed.
perhaps one way is to have someone internally or from the govt. to test security on various airlines and penalise airlines that fail tests.
we cannot let another world trade centre
happen anywhere again!!!!!!!!!!
the most important point is security and if a potential highjacker can come aboard with a knife or any other weapon, having four or two engines becomes irrelevant.
and i also believe the best way to make sure that money grabbing airlines who put profit before safety should be named and shamed.
perhaps one way is to have someone internally or from the govt. to test security on various airlines and penalise airlines that fail tests.
we cannot let another world trade centre
happen anywhere again!!!!!!!!!!
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, I admit it. I'm a passenger, and I for one strongly prefer 4 engine aircraft over two engine aircraft when given the choice. I'm afraid I may be one of the morons Richard Branson is talking about.
For example, on the LHR-JFK run there is a good mix of twins and quads to choose from - but it's notable that I have never, ever, flown a twin to JFK or indeed anywhere else across the pond where there was the choice of a quad. Why?
Partly because larger aircraft are, entirely subjectively. more comfortable from a passenger perspective: the cavernous interior of a 747 simply feels better than being in a 767, even if the seating is identical.
Partly because (superstitously or not) I probably compare planes with cars, and expect a larger plane to be somehow 'safer', or more surviveable, in an accident. A VW Polo and a Mercedes 500 SEL may both be 'safe' cars - but I know which I'd rather hit a brick wall at 40 mph in. Can this analogy be carried over to aerospace? Maybe not rationally - but who said that consumer purchase decisions were supposed to be entirely rational?
Partly because I know that a single engine failure on a quad is less of an issue than on a twin. And even though the twin aircraft is not operating outside its design limits by using one engine, some of the immediate effects of an engine outage - e.g. unexpected yaw - are surely going to be magnified in a twin. In an extreme circumstance, my addled mind reasons, that might make all the difference.
And finally, partly because ETOPS routes simply take longer. The time difference on the LHR-JFK route can be 20 minutes or half an hour (although looking at the schedules today the average scheduled difference is about 15 minutes). Not a big deal perhaps, but if I can reduce the amount of time I spend cooped up in a metal tube, I will.
I suspect someone will now respond, letting me know how inadequate and irrational my reasons for preferring quads are. And it's true, some of my reasons, particularly on safety issues, amount to little more than gut feel, and probably are indefensible on rational grounds. But before you flame me too hard, remember I'm one of the credit-card carrying clowns who keeps the pilots among you in jobs. It's hard, in my view, to criticise Richard Branson for listening to his customers prejudices, even if they are little more than that.
Edited for flame-out of grammar engine.
[ 18 November 2001: Message edited by: J-Class ]
For example, on the LHR-JFK run there is a good mix of twins and quads to choose from - but it's notable that I have never, ever, flown a twin to JFK or indeed anywhere else across the pond where there was the choice of a quad. Why?
Partly because larger aircraft are, entirely subjectively. more comfortable from a passenger perspective: the cavernous interior of a 747 simply feels better than being in a 767, even if the seating is identical.
Partly because (superstitously or not) I probably compare planes with cars, and expect a larger plane to be somehow 'safer', or more surviveable, in an accident. A VW Polo and a Mercedes 500 SEL may both be 'safe' cars - but I know which I'd rather hit a brick wall at 40 mph in. Can this analogy be carried over to aerospace? Maybe not rationally - but who said that consumer purchase decisions were supposed to be entirely rational?
Partly because I know that a single engine failure on a quad is less of an issue than on a twin. And even though the twin aircraft is not operating outside its design limits by using one engine, some of the immediate effects of an engine outage - e.g. unexpected yaw - are surely going to be magnified in a twin. In an extreme circumstance, my addled mind reasons, that might make all the difference.
And finally, partly because ETOPS routes simply take longer. The time difference on the LHR-JFK route can be 20 minutes or half an hour (although looking at the schedules today the average scheduled difference is about 15 minutes). Not a big deal perhaps, but if I can reduce the amount of time I spend cooped up in a metal tube, I will.
I suspect someone will now respond, letting me know how inadequate and irrational my reasons for preferring quads are. And it's true, some of my reasons, particularly on safety issues, amount to little more than gut feel, and probably are indefensible on rational grounds. But before you flame me too hard, remember I'm one of the credit-card carrying clowns who keeps the pilots among you in jobs. It's hard, in my view, to criticise Richard Branson for listening to his customers prejudices, even if they are little more than that.
Edited for flame-out of grammar engine.
[ 18 November 2001: Message edited by: J-Class ]
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: here to eternity
Posts: 577
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, Iain - you're twice as likely to have an engine failure with 4 engines than you are with two, all other considerations equal.
However, as has already been pointed out, with a single engine failure - let's assume the odds of any one engine failing are a hundred thousand to one - you're landing ASAP in a twin - you carry on to destination in a quad.
With a double-engine failure, in a quad you're landing ASAP. In a twin, you're going in.
So, chances of a single engine failure:-
Quad - 25,000:1, carry on
Twin - 50,000:1, land asap
Double engine failure:-
Quad - 2,500,000,000:1, land asap
Twin - 5,000,000,000:1, crashing
Which odds do you prefer?
However, as has already been pointed out, with a single engine failure - let's assume the odds of any one engine failing are a hundred thousand to one - you're landing ASAP in a twin - you carry on to destination in a quad.
With a double-engine failure, in a quad you're landing ASAP. In a twin, you're going in.
So, chances of a single engine failure:-
Quad - 25,000:1, carry on
Twin - 50,000:1, land asap
Double engine failure:-
Quad - 2,500,000,000:1, land asap
Twin - 5,000,000,000:1, crashing
Which odds do you prefer?
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: England
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hugmonster, I do see your point about being able to continue to the destination. But also as some one else mention good maintenance is really what it is all about. I have flown accross the pond in both twins and quads, and to be honest, I seem to sleep very well on both of them!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
J-class and others...
1. ETOPS Routes "are longer" - not really true - with 3 hour ETOPS I have never been "routed" to stay in a 3 hour circle - and that's London to JFK, Nassau, Caracas, Bermuda etc. The reason the routes "take" longer is simple - 767s are slower! 777 times should be nearer 747, and less than A340 (slowbus)...
2. Prob of Engine fail. ETOPS engines SHOULD be less likely to fail than 4 Eng ac - because they have to be maintained to a higher standard. Try putting that into the equations above...
3. <<I do see your point about being able to continue to the destination>> A 3 or 4 Eng will only continue to Dest when substantially already there. Eng fail before, say ToC, will be back to base PDQ for anyone. And since the 4 Eng is twice as likely (or more) to have an Eng Fail than 2 Eng, a spurious argument I feel...
All in all, look at the experience. (Unfortunately) we have plenty of experience of airliner accidents over the past decade or 2. I have yet to recall one due to an independent double engine failure (by indpendent, I mean where both engines fail for their own reasons. If you run out of fuel / into heavy hail / rain, it doesn't matter how many engines you have).
NoD
[ 18 November 2001: Message edited by: NigelOnDraft ]
1. ETOPS Routes "are longer" - not really true - with 3 hour ETOPS I have never been "routed" to stay in a 3 hour circle - and that's London to JFK, Nassau, Caracas, Bermuda etc. The reason the routes "take" longer is simple - 767s are slower! 777 times should be nearer 747, and less than A340 (slowbus)...
2. Prob of Engine fail. ETOPS engines SHOULD be less likely to fail than 4 Eng ac - because they have to be maintained to a higher standard. Try putting that into the equations above...
3. <<I do see your point about being able to continue to the destination>> A 3 or 4 Eng will only continue to Dest when substantially already there. Eng fail before, say ToC, will be back to base PDQ for anyone. And since the 4 Eng is twice as likely (or more) to have an Eng Fail than 2 Eng, a spurious argument I feel...
All in all, look at the experience. (Unfortunately) we have plenty of experience of airliner accidents over the past decade or 2. I have yet to recall one due to an independent double engine failure (by indpendent, I mean where both engines fail for their own reasons. If you run out of fuel / into heavy hail / rain, it doesn't matter how many engines you have).
NoD
[ 18 November 2001: Message edited by: NigelOnDraft ]
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The argument over 2 versus 4 is nonsense! Ask TWA or Swissair or the DC10 at Sioux City.
The most likely cause of multiple engine failure is either something catastrophic or fuel contamination - in which case, it matters little as to how many engines you have. I have no figures to hand, but I bet over the years since ETOPS was introduced that 2 eng A/C have a better record on safety than their 4 eng brethern over ocean crossings. In any case RB has no professional experience regarding this topic. Like many on this thread, I suspect he is currently clutching at commercial straws.
The most likely cause of multiple engine failure is either something catastrophic or fuel contamination - in which case, it matters little as to how many engines you have. I have no figures to hand, but I bet over the years since ETOPS was introduced that 2 eng A/C have a better record on safety than their 4 eng brethern over ocean crossings. In any case RB has no professional experience regarding this topic. Like many on this thread, I suspect he is currently clutching at commercial straws.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
J-Class I think the thing that antagonises is that Branson is playing on pax irrational fears in a desperate bid to promote his airline. Do you seriously believe his fleet planning has anything to do with customer engine preferance?
A pretty nasty line to take considering the state of the airline industry at the moment.
A pretty nasty line to take considering the state of the airline industry at the moment.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Manchester UK
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Constantly amazed at the number of people that still cling to the mistaken belief that the more engines an aircraft has,then the safer it is.
An old instructor of mine used to say his definition of heaven was to say to the Ground Crew "Start No8" and then to hear the reply "Certainly sir....upper or lower"!
(edited for bod spilling)
[ 18 November 2001: Message edited by: kemo ]
An old instructor of mine used to say his definition of heaven was to say to the Ground Crew "Start No8" and then to hear the reply "Certainly sir....upper or lower"!
(edited for bod spilling)
[ 18 November 2001: Message edited by: kemo ]
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: germany
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nigelondraft and anyone else interested....
138 mins ETOPS required to cross the pond unrestricted.
Constantly amazed at the number of people who imagine that ETOPS aircraft get maintained to a "higher standard". An RB211 fitted to a BA 767 is the same as that fitted to a 747 (minor "fit" differences aside).
138 mins ETOPS required to cross the pond unrestricted.
Constantly amazed at the number of people who imagine that ETOPS aircraft get maintained to a "higher standard". An RB211 fitted to a BA 767 is the same as that fitted to a 747 (minor "fit" differences aside).
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NigelOnDraft;
That bit about only continuing to destination if substantially there, with engine failure on quads....
On a flight from EZE to LGW with BA (744) a few years ago, one of the engines encountered problems before we had even reached ToC-it was shut down, but we carried on regardless....to LIS, rather than heading back to EZE. (I think we were barely across the River Plate!)
Regards,
AJ
That bit about only continuing to destination if substantially there, with engine failure on quads....
On a flight from EZE to LGW with BA (744) a few years ago, one of the engines encountered problems before we had even reached ToC-it was shut down, but we carried on regardless....to LIS, rather than heading back to EZE. (I think we were barely across the River Plate!)
Regards,
AJ
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: He's on the limb to nowhere
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I might be accused of being a bit anal here, but what the hell.....
Nigel
or 2. I have yet to recall one due to an independent double engine failure (by indpendent, I mean where both engines fail for their own reasons.)
There was that recent incident over the Atlantic where the ETOPS engine failed because of leak in fuel line.
Soon after, the second engine failed because?????? Well we don't know yet...... but it wasn't primarily because of a hole in the fuel line on the other side.
Probably neither failed for their own reasons, but they both failed nonetheless, and the cause is probably independent.
Some would say this could happen to a quad too, of course.
So human error excluded, I'd say the reason ETOPS twins are safer than quads is because there is far more margin built into each engine of the ETOPS plane than each engine on the quad. An ETOPS plane has to have engines which will allow them to climb like a bat out of hell with one engine. A quad can do only that with three. One might say that each engine on a quad is pretty underpowered.
If you hit windshear or have a GPWS and you have all engines turning, then I'd rather have all my engines to be totally outrageously overpowered. An overpowered twin (with all engines) may clear the ridge the OK powered (with all engines) quad impacts.
As an aside - which is what this thread has become - that B777 which got 180 ETOPS before being put into service flew from Hawaii to the mainland on one engine. If an engine failed on the 777 over the desolate wastelands, I would rather the commander made the judgement call that he fly across Siberia and land in Tokyo. Statistics would be on his side. Engines are far more reliable than dodgy controllers, dodgy weather services, dodgy approaches and dodgy runways. Better food in Tokyo too, but the booze costs would be excessive
[ 19 November 2001: Message edited by: slim_slag ]
Nigel
or 2. I have yet to recall one due to an independent double engine failure (by indpendent, I mean where both engines fail for their own reasons.)
There was that recent incident over the Atlantic where the ETOPS engine failed because of leak in fuel line.
Soon after, the second engine failed because?????? Well we don't know yet...... but it wasn't primarily because of a hole in the fuel line on the other side.
Probably neither failed for their own reasons, but they both failed nonetheless, and the cause is probably independent.
Some would say this could happen to a quad too, of course.
So human error excluded, I'd say the reason ETOPS twins are safer than quads is because there is far more margin built into each engine of the ETOPS plane than each engine on the quad. An ETOPS plane has to have engines which will allow them to climb like a bat out of hell with one engine. A quad can do only that with three. One might say that each engine on a quad is pretty underpowered.
If you hit windshear or have a GPWS and you have all engines turning, then I'd rather have all my engines to be totally outrageously overpowered. An overpowered twin (with all engines) may clear the ridge the OK powered (with all engines) quad impacts.
As an aside - which is what this thread has become - that B777 which got 180 ETOPS before being put into service flew from Hawaii to the mainland on one engine. If an engine failed on the 777 over the desolate wastelands, I would rather the commander made the judgement call that he fly across Siberia and land in Tokyo. Statistics would be on his side. Engines are far more reliable than dodgy controllers, dodgy weather services, dodgy approaches and dodgy runways. Better food in Tokyo too, but the booze costs would be excessive
[ 19 November 2001: Message edited by: slim_slag ]
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CC
Re your <<Constantly amazed at the number of people who imagine that ETOPS aircraft get maintained to a "higher standard". An RB211 fitted to a BA 767 is the same as that fitted to a 747 (minor "fit" differences aside). >>
Firstly, many MEL entries are more restrictive for ETOPS operations which is a form of "higher maint standard"...
Secondly, we are told the grounded BA SH 767 cannot go LH because the engines are expired for ETOPS (or similar)...
And when I joined, was always told new RB211s went to the 744, waited until they passed the 400hr failure point, then went to 767 ETOPS, and as they got "old", either to 767 SH or back to 744...
So I would have thought there was something in it, else what is ETOPS all about?
NoD
Re your <<Constantly amazed at the number of people who imagine that ETOPS aircraft get maintained to a "higher standard". An RB211 fitted to a BA 767 is the same as that fitted to a 747 (minor "fit" differences aside). >>
Firstly, many MEL entries are more restrictive for ETOPS operations which is a form of "higher maint standard"...
Secondly, we are told the grounded BA SH 767 cannot go LH because the engines are expired for ETOPS (or similar)...
And when I joined, was always told new RB211s went to the 744, waited until they passed the 400hr failure point, then went to 767 ETOPS, and as they got "old", either to 767 SH or back to 744...
So I would have thought there was something in it, else what is ETOPS all about?
NoD