3 ms·

I will miss the 747. Modern planes with less engines feel less safe. I hate all the justifications used to fly long distances across oceans with only 2 engines,

I will miss the 747. Modern planes with less engines feel less safe. I hate all the justifications used to fly long distances across oceans with only 2 engines, or only 1 engine.

deleted 3mo ago
[deleted]
stouset 3mo ago
You mean the justification that they are, in fact, just as safe?
- GMoromisato 3mo ago
  I'm curious about this--wouldn't one expect more engines to be safer? Unless having more engines increases the chance of certain kinds of accidents? Like maybe the chance of an engine failure damaging the hull goes up with more engines? Not questioning the justification--I do believe it--I'm just curious about the details.
  - mjg59 3mo ago
    All else being equal, potentially - although as I mentioned there have been cases where one engine falling off a 4 engine aircraft hit another in the process. But ETOPS certification is based on it being demonstrated that engines are sufficiently reliable that the probability of an independent failure is incredibly unlikely, and also requires that operators have a stricter maintenance process. The only dual engine failures on modern two-engine aircraft I can think of off-hand have been fuel exhaustion (either actually being out of fuel, or ice blocking fuel filters in the case of BA38), and would have affected 4-engine aircraft just as badly.
    - KolmogorovComp 3mo ago
      No, the highest risk for dual engine failure is bird strike.
      - stouset 3mo ago
        Which is not and never will be an issue for airliners transiting oceans under ETOPS.
        scrumper 3mo ago
        It is at takeoff and landing, applies equally to ETOPS or otherwise.
        stouset 3mo ago
        > I hate all the justifications used to fly long distances across oceans with only 2 engines, or only 1 engine. Which is why I specified that it’s equally as safe for airlines operating under ETOPS.
      - mjg59 3mo ago
        There's US1549 and FR4102 - are there any others? But yes, the assumption about failures being independent is obviously violated by large flocks of birds, although this has also resulted in the loss of 4-engined aircraft.
  - intexpress 3mo ago
    > Wouldn't one expect more engines to be safer? Right, the more engines the better…
  - WalterBright 3mo ago
    Engine failure is very dangerous. 4 engines are twice as likely to have a major failure than 2. (despite having "fuses" so an engine can depart without taking much of the wing with it, there are many cases of single engine failure bringing down the airplane)
  - stouset 3mo ago
    There have been zero lives and airframes lost due to independent double engine failure during trans-oceanic ETOPS.
mjg59 3mo ago
More people have died due to one engine falling off a 747 and knocking off the other engine on the same wing than have died due to dual engine failure on an ETOPS certified aircraft

I will miss the 747. Modern planes with less engines feel less safe. I hate all the justifications used to fly long distances across oceans with only 2 engines, or only 1 engine.

deleted 3mo ago

[deleted]

stouset 3mo ago

You mean the justification that they are, in fact, just as safe?

GMoromisato 3mo ago
I'm curious about this--wouldn't one expect more engines to be safer? Unless having more engines increases the chance of certain kinds of accidents? Like maybe the chance of an engine failure damaging the hull goes up with more engines? Not questioning the justification--I do believe it--I'm just curious about the details.
- mjg59 3mo ago
  All else being equal, potentially - although as I mentioned there have been cases where one engine falling off a 4 engine aircraft hit another in the process. But ETOPS certification is based on it being demonstrated that engines are sufficiently reliable that the probability of an independent failure is incredibly unlikely, and also requires that operators have a stricter maintenance process. The only dual engine failures on modern two-engine aircraft I can think of off-hand have been fuel exhaustion (either actually being out of fuel, or ice blocking fuel filters in the case of BA38), and would have affected 4-engine aircraft just as badly.
  - KolmogorovComp 3mo ago
    No, the highest risk for dual engine failure is bird strike.
    - stouset 3mo ago
      Which is not and never will be an issue for airliners transiting oceans under ETOPS.
      - scrumper 3mo ago
        It is at takeoff and landing, applies equally to ETOPS or otherwise.
        stouset 3mo ago
        > I hate all the justifications used to fly long distances across oceans with only 2 engines, or only 1 engine. Which is why I specified that it’s equally as safe for airlines operating under ETOPS.
    - mjg59 3mo ago
      There's US1549 and FR4102 - are there any others? But yes, the assumption about failures being independent is obviously violated by large flocks of birds, although this has also resulted in the loss of 4-engined aircraft.
- intexpress 3mo ago
  > Wouldn't one expect more engines to be safer? Right, the more engines the better…
- WalterBright 3mo ago
  Engine failure is very dangerous. 4 engines are twice as likely to have a major failure than 2. (despite having "fuses" so an engine can depart without taking much of the wing with it, there are many cases of single engine failure bringing down the airplane)
- stouset 3mo ago
  There have been zero lives and airframes lost due to independent double engine failure during trans-oceanic ETOPS.

mjg59 3mo ago

More people have died due to one engine falling off a 747 and knocking off the other engine on the same wing than have died due to dual engine failure on an ETOPS certified aircraft