I wasn't really commenting on adding engines - I know that concept has been around a long time. This wasn't just an engine going down, this was catastrophic fa

I wasn't really commenting on adding engines - I know that concept has been around a long time. This wasn't just an engine going down, this was catastrophic failure, and my amazement is in that no other part of the aircraft was affected outside of that one engine. > There's no other part of the airplane behind the engines either, so nothing to be hit by debris. No, but there's a wing and the fuselage nearby. Again, I'm not an engineer, but I'm assuming that in this type of failure, the part of the engine that's spinning might want to come laterally (is that the right word?), and that seems like it could be trouble. I'm amazed that it didn't. > What amazes me more is that the newest twinjets are now considered reliable enough to fly six hours away from the nearest landing strip -- that's how far they can coast on the single remaining engine if necessary! Totally amazing. I'm not sure, but is that only the A350XWB for now, or have others been certified past ETOPS-360? It's basically certified to the design limit of the aircraft, so I'm not sure what else has been designed for that. Even 5+ hours is nuts though. Somewhat related, but check out the Chilean regs on flying from the mainland to IPC/PPT. As far as I know, they still have the one aircraft rule.