From: email@example.com (Scott Odle) Organization: Earthlink Network, Inc. Date: 12 Oct 96 02:35:57 References: 1 2 Followups: 1 2
View raw article or MIME structure
In article <airliners.1996.1976@ohare.Chicago.COM>, firstname.lastname@example.org says... > >> Are ETOPS flights as safe as 3 and 4 engined aircraft, except the obvious >> that they have less engines and hence less chance of a failure! > >One of Boeing's reasons for developing the 777 for ETOPS was that >additional engines do not add a significant margin of safety for the >simple reason that the more engines, the more maintenance that is required >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. Of course, there is disagreement in the aviation industry as >to whether the evidence truly shows that to be the case. > >Boeing made the case well enough that we received FAA approval for >delivered ETOPS capability. > Your post might lead some to believe that the case Boeing presented had only to do with the conclusion that 2 engines are no less safe than 3+. There are some very skeptical (and in some cases ignorant) people in some of the aviation related newsgroups. As I recall Boeing had to go through alot of testing to prove reliability and maintainability in order to get the approval.