Re: 2, 3, 4 engines-- what's actually safer?

From:         drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard)
Organization: Boeing
Date:         19 Mar 93 00:07:39 PST
References:   1 2 3
View raw article
  or MIME structure

In article <airliners.1993.241@ohare.Chicago.COM> rdd@cactus.org writes:
>>In particular, I'm interested if anyone can think of an incident in which a
>>trijet survived (for some value of survived; a semi-controlled crash
>>landing, such as the Sioux City crash, would qualify) where a twinjet would
>>have (presumably) not done so. 

Hi Robert!  Sorry to piggyback on your message, but the original one is
gone from our system, and I just read something today that is highly
pertinent to the discussion.

Gordon Bethune, the incoming Renton Division VP&GM, just made a speech in
Singapore on ETOPS, and he made two interesting statements.

1)  The number of accidents involving twin-engine jets which occurred
because of both engines shutting down for unrelated reasons: Zero. None.

2)  The number of accidents involving airplanes with more than two engines
with two engines shut down for unrelated reasons.  Two, both involving four
engined airplanes on take off.

The guy who made these statements was the VP of Boeing Customer Services
and is therefore quite conservative.  :-)   I hope this answers the
original question.  I now return to our regularly scheduled newsfroup.


-- 
Terry
drinkard@bcstec.boeing.com
"Anyone who thinks they can hold the company responsible for what I say has
more lawyers than sense."