1. Welcome to SocialHangar.net! The place where everything Airlines is shared, discussed and debated. Whether you're a frequent traveler or a fan of airliners and airports you'll be able to find what you need here...so browse around, take a look and register if you like what you see. Registration is simple...just click on the 'Sign Up Now' link to the right of this message to get your FREE account (you can also choose to register using Facebook). Once you register this message will disappear. Hope you'll join us!

WHY FOUR ENGINES ARE BETTER THAN TWO............

Discussion in 'Airplane, Aircraft & Jumbo Jet Talk' started by Richard Wyeroski, Dec 19, 2012.

  1. Richard Wyeroski

    Richard Wyeroski Hangar Gold Member I

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2012
    Messages:
    6,678
    Likes Received:
    15,986
    Trophy Points:
    926
    Gender:
    Male
    Country:
    United States United States
    Hi All:

    Airlines are rushing to operate TWIN-JET equipment on long over water flights. The aircraft are cheaper to operate, smaller and much more profitable.The problem is it is also more of a risk to the flying public. The FAA has recently opened the door for this operation by extending the flight time a twin jet could be from a suitable landing airport. The original rules were 180 minutes on one engine. The new rules are 320 minutes on one engine.

    The United states and Europe have suffered unfair competition from "third world country" maintenance facilities. These lower cost bases are able to perform heavy maintenance for 30 cents on the dollar! Mechanics are not licensed, can not read or write English ( the universal aviation language) and security is either poor or non existent compared to the US or Europe.

    The other side of the coin is poor over site of by government. Little or no surveillance by the Government agencies that are suppose to control maintenance quality control and aircraft part production. "Bogus" poor quality parts are a big problem that will effect safety and reliability.

    So with that being said. take a look at a list of items that need to be performed by a crew in the event there is an engine failure in flight.

    I personally believe that long distance over water flights (pacific) is to much of a risk. The original 180 minute rule is more reasonable and safer. Four engine jet aircraft are not subject to these rules and are safer when an aircraft is far from a suitable landing airport.

    *PF- pilot flying
    *PNF-pilot not flying



    ======================================================

    B-777 OVERWATER ENGINE FAILURE Suggested sequence of events


    1. Crew maintains control of A/C.
    2. Crew handles QRC immediate action items correctly.
    3. Crew agrees upon enroute diversion alternate (SATCOM- DSP)
    4. PF begins off-track maneuver. HDG SEL 90 from track in direction of alternate
    5. Crew turns on all external lights.
    6. PF begins drift down. Call for MCP alt set to VNAV ENG OUT cruise alt. EO speed or 320/.83 whichever is most reasonable considering terrain.
    7. PF ensures MCT, monitors A/C performance, PNF handles comm.
    8. PNF declares emergency with mayday on guard, common and/or HF as appropriate
    9. PNF gives position, Flight ID, Track, Longitude/Latitude and altitude with all calls.
    10. PNF requests clearance to enroute alternate with GP facility or guard relay.
    11. Crew recalls pilots on break to cockpit via PA.
    12. PNF records FMC position in scratch pad to be entered on plotting chart and to be forwarded to dispatch via MFD "MAYDAY" report or SATCOM link.
    13. PNF completes checklist reference items.
    14. PNF builds offset 25NM Pacific/30NM Atlantic (Offset execute or LNAV armed optional HDGSEL may be required if ETOPS alternate behind) Cross tracks below FL 290 Pacific/FL285 Atlantic.
    15. PNF copies clearance to alternate.
    16. Crew proceeds to alternate at 325kts /mach .83 when able at SE altitude.
    17. PNF communicates with DD, FA's, SAMC and Pax as required.
    18. Crew initiates preparation for ditching and/or evacuation if necessary.
    19. Crew prepares estimates for FIRs or diversion airport.
    20. Crew plots FMC position every 15 minutes on plotting chart on line drawn from initial diversion point to alternate.
    21. Crew reviews ditching procedures if necessary.
    22. Crew requests RCC information via DD if necessary.
    23. Crew briefs approach, evacuation potential, runway exit plan and crew member assignments as necessary.
    * If the EO SPD (slower drift down IAL) is chosen, about 2 minutes will be available for deceleration at altitude on the track before a descent becomes necessary and the initial rate of descent will be very slow with MAX CONT thrust set on the good engine. If 320/.83 is entered, the initial rate of descent will be higher exiting the track.







    B-747 OVERWATER ENGINE FAILURE Suggested sequence of events



    1. Continue to destination
    2. 3 engine approach & landing---no change from 4 engine approach.
    ==============================================

    Soon thousands and thousands of flights will be operating on long distance over water flights.

    So you be the judge. The Airlines make more money and our government agencies have rolled over on safety.
     
  2. Gear puller

    Gear puller Hangar Associate Member V

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2012
    Messages:
    85
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    21
    Gender:
    Male
    Country:
    United States United States
    I won't go into your post but as a 777 driver let's just say it isn't factual.
    The modern incarnation of ETOPS has been around 27 years and we've had ZERO accidents and death resulting from the regs. Of course, since all countries are signatories they seem to be in on this callus disregard to safety as well.

    For perspective... forget ETOPS, let's kill the deer. An ongoing problem.... according to the NHTSA about 200 American's alone are killed by deer/vehicle accidents. Deer caused over 10k injuries a year and are responsible for over 1 billion dollars worth of agricultural damage and 1 billion dollars of vehicle damage. Deer have killed more this year in America that any scheduled carrier has.
     
  3. KennethHolland

    KennethHolland Hangar Silver Member IV Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2012
    Messages:
    2,112
    Likes Received:
    2,174
    Trophy Points:
    301
    Location:
    Dallas, TX
    Country:
    United States United States
    Great post Richard. Agree completely.
     
  4. Richard Wyeroski

    Richard Wyeroski Hangar Gold Member I

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2012
    Messages:
    6,678
    Likes Received:
    15,986
    Trophy Points:
    926
    Gender:
    Male
    Country:
    United States United States
    Gear:

    Modern ETOPS?...............?

    You do not see the difference between 180 minutes and 320 minutes?

    Factual? If your butt is 4 hours from a suitable airport, that is a long time to fly one one engine. That is factual!

    So voice your opinion but please don't cloud the issues here.

    Or as you like to say give me your facts!



    Rich
     
  5. Erik Winter

    Erik Winter Hangar Silver Member III

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2012
    Messages:
    1,754
    Likes Received:
    432
    Trophy Points:
    251
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Orlando (KMCO/MCO)
    I will fly a twin jet before a quad jet...and I think the Boeing B787-8 is ETOPS 330 not 320 but I could be wrong. Don't wanna offend you Rich, but don't you think your a smidgen on the paranoid side?
     
    Flytdeck likes this.
  6. Richard Wyeroski

    Richard Wyeroski Hangar Gold Member I

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2012
    Messages:
    6,678
    Likes Received:
    15,986
    Trophy Points:
    926
    Gender:
    Male
    Country:
    United States United States
    Ah...yes that is 330 minutes (5.5 hours) thanks for the catch.

    "And the paranoid thing.......no not at all".

    Unfortunately as the airlines ramp up these operations I hope that I am wrong.
     
  7. Edward Jeszka

    Edward Jeszka Hangar Gold Member I

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2012
    Messages:
    5,028
    Likes Received:
    10,504
    Trophy Points:
    926
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Birmingham, Alabama
    Country:
    United States United States

    Gear Puller,

    I have been down for a few days and am just trying to catch up. The paper thin argument is somewhat bogus as Rich and I have posted various lincs in support of much of what we have posted. Secondly, the drift down argument. Would you be so kind as to provide me the specifics of the flight you crewed that had an engine out on an ocean crossing and didn't loose any altitude or airspeed. Little things like cruise altitude, initial roc, TOC distance from departure point and just for grins I guess we can use STP, cruise power settings on two then on one, takeoff weight, fuel burn to TOC. You said you are a freight hauler so I presume either Omni or FedEx is probably your employer as they operate the 777-200. East coast departure would probably been from Newark to London and that is pretty easy to figure. West coast, could be several departure and destination points so if you were going west, just indicate those if you wouldn't mind. I am having just a bit of difficulty with the performance you got from the 777 at cruise altitude on one and would just like to verify your recollection.

    The third and most outstanding issue is that you continue to apply various forms of death and destruction as a comparison to aviation safety. First, you can't apply highway deaths to anything other than highway deaths. It in no way provides a form or direction to improve on aviation safety. One does not parallel the other. Then the killing of dear is simply a remarkable fact that I will probably treasure the rest of my life. Hit one once in a Citation. Did a substantial amount of leading edge damage but the little critter took off into the woods. So no fatal there. And all the rest of your "fixes" are pure fantasy. The airlines have had a remarkable run of safety. No denial. But daily occurrences continue, and will continue it appears. So why start taking down the safety net just yet? The ETOPS extension may not be an issue for you and your airline as it is a money making proposition but there is a point in all this that safety becomes a target for financial gain. I hope we are not at that point now. But it seems that you may have started to balance safety against the bottom line. Have you? I sure hope not as then you won't be one of the old timers I feel could bring safety to the up and comers.

    Edward Jeszka
    FAA Aviation Safety Inspector, Retired
     
  8. Exuma Guy

    Exuma Guy Hangar Silver Member V

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2012
    Messages:
    2,938
    Likes Received:
    7,263
    Trophy Points:
    401
    Gender:
    Male
    Country:
    Bahamas Bahamas
    The B-747 will lose altitude after an engine failure at cruise altitude, and range will be shortened. Therefore most of the steps that apply for the B-777 also apply to the B-747, the exception being possibly preparing for ditching. It's not as easy as 2 simple steps.

    As a pilot, I prefer more engines. If I were a safety manager, I would look at statistical data. Worldwide, How many transport category jets have had dual engine failures? Subtract the incidents were air contaminated the fuel, and what is the answer? A safety manager can not justify to the CEO any reason to cancel ETOPs operations. While I agree with you, ETOPs is here to stay.
     
    Flytdeck, Orca17, LandoPBM and 2 others like this.
  9. Richard Wyeroski

    Richard Wyeroski Hangar Gold Member I

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2012
    Messages:
    6,678
    Likes Received:
    15,986
    Trophy Points:
    926
    Gender:
    Male
    Country:
    United States United States
    Yes it will loose some altitude and slow down. All aircraft will do this. However other then shutting down the failed engine the flight will continue to it's destination under most circumstances. As I mention as a passenger on a long over water flight the aircraft continued to it's destination.

    there is a warm feeling knowing there are three engines bring me home!!!!

    A twin jet engine failure is an "emergency situation" with the aircraft drifting down considerably. The aircraft must advise ATC, turn of the track and proceed to a suitable landing airport.

    I believe safety has been compromised because of outsourcing.. The Government no longer knows where maintenance is being performed. The ATOS system used by FAA ATOS inspectors to do surveillance on an operator is deficient and dangerous. Lastly, there is a concern of potential terrorist activity to US flag aircraft as well as European operators.

    Since the FAA is taking the usual reactive tombstone approach to these problems we will just have to wait and see...........!

    If any pilot or operator believes this is a non issue that is fine. Cargo Flight is like and orphan child. FAA looks at this as the least of a problem because not to many souls will be lost in an accident. FAA refused to increase rest times for cargo crews. They do not care! It is the money!

    My opinion is twin jet long distance over water flights are dangerous and is putting the flying public in harms way! In the event the accident rate increases all the FAA will do is rescind the 330 minute rule and go back to the 180 rule.

    Thanks to the efforts of Ken and Lee, Airnation has day after day exposed serious problems in the Commercial Aviation Industry.

    Thanks
     
  10. Erik Winter

    Erik Winter Hangar Silver Member III

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2012
    Messages:
    1,754
    Likes Received:
    432
    Trophy Points:
    251
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Orlando (KMCO/MCO)
    Oh Boy...:rolleyes:

    ETOPS would not exist if it was not safe.
     
    Flytdeck likes this.
  11. Richard Wyeroski

    Richard Wyeroski Hangar Gold Member I

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2012
    Messages:
    6,678
    Likes Received:
    15,986
    Trophy Points:
    926
    Gender:
    Male
    Country:
    United States United States
    The new ETOPS rules are purely related to money. More and More direct flight to save money adding additional risk.

    To bad I could not be as sure as your are Eric. However my recommendation to fly four engine equipment stands!
     
  12. Erik Winter

    Erik Winter Hangar Silver Member III

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2012
    Messages:
    1,754
    Likes Received:
    432
    Trophy Points:
    251
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Orlando (KMCO/MCO)
    And if you don't mind Rich I won't listen to it.
     
    Flytdeck likes this.
  13. Exuma Guy

    Exuma Guy Hangar Silver Member V

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2012
    Messages:
    2,938
    Likes Received:
    7,263
    Trophy Points:
    401
    Gender:
    Male
    Country:
    Bahamas Bahamas
    In non-radar oceanic airspace, the 4-engine jet will turn off-track just like the 2-engine jet since it can not maintain altitude. They will have to inform ATC as well. Your flight had enough fuel to continue, but that isn't always the case. A British Airways B-747 departing LAX a few years ago continued after an engine failure. They made England but landed well short of London. The 4-engine jet will likely proceed to an alternate as well.

    It's not "business as usual" as you are suggesting.
    However, it is safer than 2 engines.

    As for out-sourcing, it's not a new problem. It's always been happening. When the FAA produced their Suspected Unapproved Parts Program over a decade ago, their own facility in Atlantic City had 60% of their parts inventory thrown out.

    The FAA has reacted with onerous regulations for parts tracking and operators must perform vendor audits. ATOS is crap. ATOS compliance requires so many man-hours that many small operators are giving up. It's all about putting the responsibility on the operators so the FAA doesn't shoulder the blame when things go wrong. This we agree on. In the end, the responsible operators will do things right, and the shady operators will cut corners, as it always has been.

    Guy
     
    Lord Leighton and Erik Winter like this.
  14. Richard Wyeroski

    Richard Wyeroski Hangar Gold Member I

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2012
    Messages:
    6,678
    Likes Received:
    15,986
    Trophy Points:
    926
    Gender:
    Male
    Country:
    United States United States
    I think it should be understood that outsourcing has gotten worse. The FAA is still relying on ATOS. We agree ATOS is a failure. Alaska Air flt 261 is a pure example where all perished because of pencil wiping maintenance. The FAA management at this time covered up the problem with ATOS.http://all-things-aviation.com/aircraft-accidents/alaska-air-261-accident/
    FAA STILL COVERS UP FOR ATOS FAILURES

    I will never agree that third world country maintenance facilities will ever replace US and European facilities for quality and security. This cheap maintenance outsourcing is causing all the emergency returns we read on AIRNATION everyday.

    The new ETOPS rules will add 10's of thousand of passenger flights that will operate even further away from land!

    Risk management is a term FAA likes to use. It simply means one ways the risk and watches and waits the results .......! Add in all the problems with illegal outsourcing of aircraft parts, cheap maintenance and the risks are very real.......TO REAL ! This was NOT the case years ago.

    I welcome debate and opinions. As long as it does not cloud the issue....... or is cynical (ERIC) :rolleyes:

    Gear, you say you fly a 777F. At 250 tons your are going to slow down and go down considerably when you shut down an engine. You obviously are accepting the risk. Fine! The increase in twin jet ops will increase 10 fold. The risks will increase and as I said if a few airliners dump at sea, the FAA will cancel ETOPS for the effected aircraft and get out their dog and pony show.

    IT IS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY.......
     
    Flytdeck, LandoPBM and Lord Leighton like this.
  15. Erik Winter

    Erik Winter Hangar Silver Member III

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2012
    Messages:
    1,754
    Likes Received:
    432
    Trophy Points:
    251
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Orlando (KMCO/MCO)
    Twin Jet planes are also better for the environment then Quad Jets, so that is another reason why we NEED ETOPS.
     
    Flytdeck likes this.
  16. HenHouse

    HenHouse Hangar Bronze Member I

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2012
    Messages:
    166
    Likes Received:
    164
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    Country:
    United States United States
    :rolleyes: I'll take a little bit more harm to the environment and have 4 engines going overseas....thank you.
     
  17. Edward Jeszka

    Edward Jeszka Hangar Gold Member I

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2012
    Messages:
    5,028
    Likes Received:
    10,504
    Trophy Points:
    926
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Birmingham, Alabama
    Country:
    United States United States
    Erik,

    Hit the wrong button earlier so I will try again.

    I have been trying to keep track of the ideas being exchanged here and it seems that there is a really great variance in them. So I figured that it being Christmas and all I would give a gift of another version. :)

    ETOPS is a calculated risk, no more nor less. Is it safe as you categorically state and it exists because it is safe? It is the mitigation of an emergency situation based upon data collected during certification and operations of specific equipment. Having flown some over water flights I can express my opinion and I hope you don't think I am trying to impose it on you.

    ETOPS is a program that allows the manufacturers to build certain equipment for certain missions. In the early years, two engines wasn't going to make an ocean crossing. They had trouble with round motors and then they had trouble with this and that. So they got their heads together and in order to use what was being built they had to develop a program that made it legal, not necessarily safe. And then with the advent of the bigger, more powerful, and generally more dependable engines they have now come up with an ETOPS range of about 330 minutes. This again being based on odds of having two quit at the same time or close enough to each other to make a 757 (eg) a glider. It is also a rumor that is floating around that there may be an effort to increase that as well. Don't know why anyone would want to but who knows.

    My theory is simple. If one quit, why? Was it fuel contamination? Electrical? Mechanical? Lubrication? Or what. So as I sit there on one, pushing the power settings on that good one maybe even as high as max continuous (which it should do for extended periods of time) and I am about 5 1/2 hours from a possible suitable airport my comfort level certainly isn't going up... The warm fuzzy isn't quite as warm and fuzzy. There are schedules to be used to maximize the efficiency which I am sure you are aware of. But they are predicated on the good engine not missing a beat. The margins of safety are obviously good enough to allow all to buy in and most passengers never even have a cognizant thought about it. It is just a fact of life that the odds aren't as good as they were at 180 minutes, or with both fans humming away.

    I am really glad to see Exuma comment on ATOS. This was an 800 Indy pipe dream as are many of the programs the FAA has tossed at aviation to satisfy this group or that group. As a safety agency, it is strictly my opinion, they are a failure. Money doesn't have to be tossed at every issue. Lots of experienced inspectors doing what they were hired to do, look and see what is going on in the industry, would obtain far greater benefits than sitting in the office cubicle doing data entry. And the airlines have to live with it. Some like it, some don't. Exuma stated it pretty clearly. The good ones will make it work no matter what the FAA decides and the bad ones will skirt the rules and procedures because they haven't found the correct formula to match safety with profit.

    So Merry Christmas and a very Happy Holiday Season to all.:p

    Edward Jeszka
    FAA Aviation Safety Inspector, Retired
     
    Flytdeck, brokenhill and LandoPBM like this.
  18. Erik Winter

    Erik Winter Hangar Silver Member III

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2012
    Messages:
    1,754
    Likes Received:
    432
    Trophy Points:
    251
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Orlando (KMCO/MCO)
    We are all entitled to have our opinion and mine is that a ETOPS certified plane is just as safe (if not safer) then a Quad Jet, here is why I say that: ETOPS certified planes must go under more thorough maintenance on a more regular basis then a Quad Jet. I will personally always choose a Twin Jet (exception of the Airbus A380-800 :):D) over a Quad Jet on any type of flight. Call me a moron if you want.
     
    Flytdeck likes this.
  19. Erik Winter

    Erik Winter Hangar Silver Member III

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2012
    Messages:
    1,754
    Likes Received:
    432
    Trophy Points:
    251
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Orlando (KMCO/MCO)
    Not a very surprising thing coming from you, Mr I don't want to go threw a Body Scanner.
     
    Flytdeck likes this.
  20. FlyerKing17

    FlyerKing17 Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2012
    Messages:
    1,456
    Likes Received:
    644
    Trophy Points:
    201
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Vancouver
    Country:
    Canada Canada
    The bottom line is they're not going to build any new civil jets with four engines for a long. long time. Like it or not, we're stuck with two.
     
    Flytdeck, LandoPBM and Sierra1 like this.

Share This Page