From: email@example.com (Charles Platt) Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC Date: 10 Oct 96 11:29:29 References: 1 2 Followups: 1 2 3
View raw article or MIME structure
DLawler (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote: > to keep them in peak operating condition. Boeing has argued that the > evidence shows the more engines and aircraft has, the more likely there > will be a problem with one or more of the engines, and that consequently > 3+ engine airplanes are no more safe in that respect than 2 engine > airplanes. By this argument, double or triple redundancy in instruments or control systems should also be removed, since the more electronics or the more hydraulic lines you have, the greater the chance there is for one of them to fail. As I recall, about 10 years ago, an aircraft (DC10 or L1011, can't remember which) suffered catastrophic loss of engine oil pressure somewhere in the region of the Caribbean. Two out of the three engines were shut down. The remaining engine lasted long enough to reach a safe landing, though it too was suffering loss of oil pressure--a critical component had been wrongly installed in all three engines. Certainly this was a singular event, but one event is all it takes to make this passenger feel that redundancy is a comforting concept.