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
:D

>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

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!

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.