3 ms·

Thanks for the thoughtful replies, all. I still don't buy the idea that this change was made with public safety as the top priority. I do get that it might be a

Thanks for the thoughtful replies, all. I still don't buy the idea that this change was made with public safety as the top priority. I do get that it might be a reasonable trade off of safety/profits. I really do hope the ETOPS rule changes turn out to be a good choice over the long term.

mulmen 7y ago
ETOPS is not new. The 767-200ER entered service in 1985. We live in the future you are alluding to. Your concerns have not been validated by reality.
jrockway 7y ago
The safest way to avoid aviation incidents is to not have planes at all. From there, there is a continuum of how much risk you want to take on. If we add many safety bells and whistles to planes, it would mean nobody could afford flying. If people couldn't afford it, they'd use other transportation methods. Those methods might be more dangerous than flying. So it wouldn't actually increase the safety of travellers. Oceanliners and cars are far from 100% safe, for example.
meristem 7y ago
ETOPS-like rules have been in use since late 70's. It is an evolving standard with different craft types being approved for different ETOPS. While some current frames are rated ETOPS 330 or 370, this type of operation began officially with planes allowed to do only 90-minute ETOPS. If flying commercial over oceans, it is either ETOPS, A380, or a current type of 747 (747-8).