Date: 25 Sep 97 01:39:44 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Organization: Concentric Internet Services References: 1 2 3 4
View raw article or MIME structure
In article <airliners.1997.2247@ohare.Chicago.COM>, Steve Lacker <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: >Peter wrote: >> >> > > I have a basic (hopefully not dumb) ETOPS question: >> >> I have another: Following an engine failure, is there any actual >> requirement to land at that alternate airfield [180 or 60 or whatever >> minutes away] or can you continue all the way to the destination on one >> engine? > >I think it is a requirement. Logically it SHOULD be, especially for a >twin. Think about it: one engine is inop so your safety margin is gone. >You fly or glide depending on that last engine. Also, while its *most >likely* just a problem with one engine, there is always the chance its >not... I would agree with you that logically it should be. However, I don't know how it is actually practiced. In 1995, I posted an article in this group on a related incidence: I just read about another inflight shutdown. This time it is on an Air China Boeing 767 flying form Xiamen (off the Southern coast of China, approximately one hour north of Hong Kong) to Singapore. One engine failed at 35,000 ft over the South China Sea and was shut down. The pilot flew under the power of the other engine for over 170 minutes and safely landed at Singapore's Changi Airport. (very close to the 180-minute ETOPS rating, but I don't know if Air China's B767 has the 180-minute ETOPS rating.) IMHO, this is simply outrageous: Hong Kong, Guangzhou, or Hainan Island should be very close to where the aircraft first experienced the engine failure. In the news article that I read, the pilot was praised for his "skillfulness".