No kidding Sherlock?

At last count, UA had 30 active 747s and 33 in flyable storage. NW has 34 active 747s and 25 in storage.

Bubbers, it was brought up in the context of risk analysis. If it unsafe or even unwise to operate a 4 engined (overpowered) aircraft on 3 engines to destination how unsafe or unwise is certifying a 2 engined aircraft for a 3 hr ETOPS. Or to put it another way, would you prefer to be on a twin on 1 for 3 hrs, or a 4 on 3 for 12?

That´s what I mean by setting aside the fact of the number of engines.

The discussion you guys are having, about 4 versus 2 engines is interesting but has nothing to do with why the FAA got involved.

Shooting in my owbn foot ... I do not think so.

Its a fact of life that the 4, 3 and 2 engine powered jet are there for sale... if you want one then pick one out. There are pro´s and con´s arguments for each type and are are all regulated in a differant way.

As I said before it will not be easy for BA to show that the rules that govern their ops were intended to cover this case and that´s the whole point.

Redundancy NOT to be used for strickly commercial reasons is not within the spirit of the regulations. That ´s the point I made earlier on and that´s where this tread stands right now.

That is the step foreward from endless debate about 4 versus 2 and may very well be the outcome of this conflict.

Sky9, I agree with you, always have. The 2 engine ETOPS has to do with economy. It has proven to be safe so the 4 engine planes are going away because of competition. When they built the B52 they needed 8 engines to make it fly, now they only need 2. I think the FAA should look at their own regulations and realize that BA didn't violate them by continuing because they had more than two engines.

Mark Twain

Twins are taking over the oceanic and arctic routes -- however it will take one single ditching of a twin due to mechanical failure to occasion a change in regulatory philosophy and passenger demand.

Not to say that a twin ditching is inevitable; in fact, it's highly unlikely, but could happen tomorrow.

The only reason that a twin hasn't already ditched is because there was an airfield in the Azores within glider range. (OK it wasn't a double engine failure but the result was the same).

Fuel exhaustion or an on board fire like a couple months ago are a lot more threatening to overwater flights than number of engines operating.

Will they make it illegal to fly over the GAF or the Bay of Biscay or The Sahara or the middle of Africa or the Andes for the same reason? Losing both engines on a twin would be equally as disastrous in those and many other places.

Most passengers do not even know what aircraft they are flying on let alone how many engines it has.

Good thing too when Mr. Branson starts ETOPS and has to remove his opportunist slogans as well.

Or not being able to make a correct interpretation of a weather radar return by a highly qualified BA B 777 crew.

There HAS been a ditching of a twin - the 767 off Madagascar?? Of course it was fuel exhaustion precipitated by hijacking. But it could have just as well have been 3 or 4 donks quitting for the same cause.

As I've pointed out before, the incidence of a second engine failure for an UNRELATED cause is measured in decades.

The folks seeking to eliminate all risk from air travel should focus their efforts on more productive pursuits--like the risk of driving from home to the airport. :rolleyes:

I think another "twin" ,though not etops, ditched also due to fuel exhaustion, a DC9 quite awhile ago.

I seem to recall a 4 engine plane landed in the water in the bay of San Francisco. a JAL DC8 back in the late 60's or early 70's... the plane was recovered and lived to fly again...though not a true ditching I suppose.


Until there is a regulation for everything, keeping the passengers, crew, and innocents on the ground safe and the reputation of your airline clear might be good advice regardless of the number of engines installed.

j

....which is far easier to achieve if you have four engines as opposed to two on long over-water flights, but the FAA seems mysteriously happy to ignore that aspect of long-range ops and focus strangely on looking minutely at aeroplanes with great redundancy instead of those that aren't that redundant and risk everybody on one engine over water for excessive periods.

Shall we call it a day?

jon,

the DC9 ditched because of fuel exhaustion while diverting after missing several approaches on the destination.
http://aviation-safety.net/database/...0502-0&lang=en

And the JAL DC8 "landed" short of the runway at SFO in full landing config during a CAT II approach which went haywire with all 4 running until they hit.
http://aviation-safety.net/database/...1122-0&lang=en

Best regards

AN2 Driver

an2

yes, I was living in San Francisco at the time and recall driving out to see the JAL...autopilot booboo or really a misunderstanding by the crew of the way autopilot was to be used, coupled with the so called, "black hole" effect of landing over water into SF's runway at night.

Somehow I think the concept of 2 engine vs 4 engine over water ops is the main point of the thread. Just to clarify, I think a good 4 engine plane is better at over water ops than a good 2 engine plane.

I think the reasons to deploy 2 engine over water planes are economic. I still recall the first TWA flight on two engines across the atlantic. Everyone shook their head and said: why?

And that if a malfunction happens, the remaining engines or engine should be used to get the plane to the best and nearest airport.

A quick question for the 747 guys: can the 747 fly on one engine? I thought I read it can, provided the operating engine is an inboard engine (ie: 2 or 3) and the weight/ altitude/ temps are all ok.


j

747 engine failure on t/o...LAX to LHR...
 

I'm quite amazed at the hoo-haa about this.

Not a lot to do with twin vs. 4 eng issue. More a bizarre and 'somehow listened-to call from BA OPS'.

1/4 of power function/design of a/c has been lost on t/o.

Dump fuel and land asap. Overweight landing considered if other residual failures.

In my view, a rather bizarre attempt (knowing BA OPS LHR) of trying to get an a/c home. Quite extraordinary and nonsensical.

This HAS happened before (aka Penta Hotel LHR incident etc etc). Better to Land Now when first major problem has arisen before the third fatal one does later on in the flt. I mean it's not as if LAX can't sort out an engine change.

k

While there have been some peculiar posts on this subject my vote for the most biased, misinformed and distorted interpretation of the events in question goes to Karma-Air. A highly questionable judgment or statement in virtually every sentence. Who would be bothered?

jondc9.....

Methinks the question may be more apt to say can a 747 fly on 2 engines....as demostrated in real life cases like the Cargo ElAl classic at AMS. It all depends on residual damage/systems/airframe condition.

747 2 engine loss on one side = catastrophic if linked with flap/wing residual damage. 747 on one engine in a scenario similar to the Air Transat Azores incident (or on zero engines) is more about glide angle/ratio and no other airframe damage (residual factors) to complicate matters. (Wx/rudder hold factors et al, etc, etc).

k

Judgement...yes
 

GGV....if you could give some empirical evidence otherwise....I'd appreciate hearing about it.

The 747 LAX incident is about wisdom of operation and is highly judgemental. To continue on with e/o on t/o for a 10hr+ op is a 'no go' in my considered book.

Not sure what backup/evidence you have to make your point.

K

Well, all us B744 drivers are really sorry that 'you' didn't write the book.

Unfortunately, it would appear that we have yet another 'expert' B744 driver giving the rest of us his considered wisdom based on unrelated incidents.

Sadly, this thread has run its course and the fact that yet another 'opinion' based on nothing more than a knowledge that man has mastered powered flight has been aired, to the detriment of the debate, it's time to give this one a rest, at least until the case goes to court.

:rolleyes:

Too many Muppets.

Closed!