3 ms·
> A reminder that aviation regulations are written in blood. It's enormously expensive for an airframe manufacturer to deal with the fallout of a crash. There
by WalterBright 6mo ago
> A reminder that aviation regulations are written in blood.
It's enormously expensive for an airframe manufacturer to deal with the fallout of a crash.
There aren't any engineers in an airframe manufacturer willing to sign off on a faulty design. Some good engineers are so worried about that they get shifted to working on conceptual projects.
I took a loooong time for Boeing to convince the FAA that a twin engine jet was safer than a 4 engine for ocean crossings.
- xethos 6mo ago> took a loooong time for Boeing to convince the FAA that a twin engine jet was safer than a 4 engine for ocean crossings I don't believe they convinced the FAA twin is safer, just that it meets the necessary safety margins. Airlines want them to meet that regulation for fuel efficiency, but I'd want a source that they're actually safe-er, instead of simply safe enough
- WalterBright 6mo agoBoeing proved it safer. The reason is the increased complexity of more engines increased the risk of a major problem. My source is I was told this by the engineers who where involved.
- xethos 6mo agoNow see, the worst part is, I believe you. Your username pops up frequently enough, and is recognizable enough, that I consider you a reasonable, thoughtful person. And the rationale makes sense - juggling multiple engines is extremely complex But now way in hell can I, in good conscience, repeat that without a source
- WalterBright 6mo ago> But now way in hell can I, in good conscience, repeat that without a source googling "why are twin engine jets safer than quad engine jets?" should provide the needed information.
- thesumofall 6mo agoNot necessarily safer but safe enough. A modern 4 engine jet should still be safer than the 2 engine equivalent