From:         kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz)
Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California
Date:         08 Nov 96 05:24:24 
References:   1 2 3 4 5 6
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

>It would be better to compare only those aircraft that are approved for ETOPS.
>A 737 is not approved for ETOPS so its reliability does not play a role in the

>From p. 33 of Boeing's 737 sales brochure dated December 1991:

  Direct ETOPS routes save time and fuel.

  All three 737 models offer airlines ETOPS flexibility.  ETOPS lets
  European charter operators serve more vacation resorts, and it
  lets U.S. operators serve less heavily traveled Caribbean routes
  with twinjet efficiency.

Beyond that, the reliability of non-ETOPS very much plays a role in
the evaluation of ETOPS.  Non-ETOPS aircraft demonstrated the levels
of reliability which led to ETOPS in the first place.  Even today, a
failure on a non-ETOPS aircraft may impact ETOPS aircraft -- when I
was on a United 747-422 that had an in-flight engine shutdown, the
pilots had a lot of paperwork to do because of ETOPS.  The 747-400 is
not an ETOPS aircraft, of course, but the PW4056 engines United uses
on them are all but identical to the PW4060s they use on their ETOPS
767-322(ER)s.  The history of those engines also had a direct impact
on the ability of United to have an ETOPS rating for their PW4084-
equipped 777s from the first day of service.

>Also, As for shutting down the wrong engine.  Do you know the details? Was it
>crew error? Was it caused by confusion due to the cockpit design?  Without
>these and other details any comparison for use in the original question about
>ETOPS and reliability are meaningless

The article you quoted included a URL with the basic details.  It was

Another excellent source of information on this crash is

It's also been discussed in this newsgroup before; you might search
the archives ( for
Kegworth.  Claiming that the accident is meaningless in the context
of ETOPS because YOU are ignorant of the details is a lousy argument.
You had at least one pointer to start with, go look at it, don't just
try to write off the points made by those who've taken the time to do
a bit of research.

Karl Swartz	|Home
Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills