sajomojo

6 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by sajomojo 7y ago

   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 ru
2. 2.▲
   by sajomojo 7y ago

   Except this ignores that the motivation was not increased safety but money. It does seem true that twin-engine planes can be quite safe but if Boeing/Airbus were motivated to create the safest possible plane, it would probably have fou
3. 3.▲
   by sajomojo 7y ago

   Doesn't the fact that the twin-engine planes have to submit to more stringent ETOPS requirements mean the FAA believes they're less reliable than four engine planes?
4. 4.▲
   by sajomojo 7y ago

   Can you point to the statistics? I'm sure modern twin-engine planes are more reliable than very old four engine planes but what about modern vs modern?
5. 5.▲
   by sajomojo 7y ago

   It just seems like a very bad idea that twin-engine planes can fly so far from an air strip. If the #1 engine had failed as well it would have been game over. There's no possibility of gliding a 787 for 2+ hours and hundreds of miles.