Twin v Four engines
Old Age84 < you are right- I stand corrected... it was UAL with P&W's (I double checked on the web) my mistake...on the plus side I might look ignorant but I don't look like an anorak, eh...
All the 12 hours worrying about nuthin'......jees...<
No worries, the GE Quality Dept could use some prayers
>If the odds of both engines failing on a twin are so slim, then what was the reasoning behind CX grounding their RR powered 330's a few years ago (after an increase in engine failures)
<
The concern was that with such a small fleet with just another two or three IFSD that the probability could have worsened by a factor of a thousand. What you do in a case like that is *restrict* the operations while you sort out the suspect population. Not a big deal with small fleets BTDT
All the 12 hours worrying about nuthin'......jees...<
No worries, the GE Quality Dept could use some prayers
>If the odds of both engines failing on a twin are so slim, then what was the reasoning behind CX grounding their RR powered 330's a few years ago (after an increase in engine failures)
<
The concern was that with such a small fleet with just another two or three IFSD that the probability could have worsened by a factor of a thousand. What you do in a case like that is *restrict* the operations while you sort out the suspect population. Not a big deal with small fleets BTDT
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: .
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lomapeso, sorry, I was playing devils advocate with a rhetorical question.
The reason they grounded the fleet was due to a component failure (step aside geasbox drive shaft) which related to a metallurgical problem created during manufacture by a RR contractor.
You are correct in your analysis of the statistical side of things though. There was a figure floating around on the odds of a multiple fail, based on the failure rate at the time. Can't remember the #, but I recall it wasn't pretty!
The reason they grounded the fleet was due to a component failure (step aside geasbox drive shaft) which related to a metallurgical problem created during manufacture by a RR contractor.
You are correct in your analysis of the statistical side of things though. There was a figure floating around on the odds of a multiple fail, based on the failure rate at the time. Can't remember the #, but I recall it wasn't pretty!
Well I fly a twin jet and have never flown a 4 engine aircraft, the company flies ETOPS on A330's (well two of them anyway) and I would love to get on the fleet and have a go.
BUT
Having a lost an engine mid atlantic would I be happier flying a large jet single or a large tri-jet?, easy answer I reckon.
BUT
Having a lost an engine mid atlantic would I be happier flying a large jet single or a large tri-jet?, easy answer I reckon.
