Back to Squawk list
  • 35

What would've happened if United flight 328 experienced its scary engine failure over the ocean

تم الإرسال
 
A United Airlines flight from Denver to Honolulu successfully executed a safe emergency landing on Saturday after suffering an fiery engine failure shortly after takeoff. Though debris spewed across Denver suburbs, the aircraft was able to quickly turn around and land back at Denver International Airport with no injuries or lives lost. The entire ordeal lasted less than 30 minutes since the failure occurred just miles from a major international airport. But as this aircraft was heading to… (www.businessinsider.com) المزيد...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


s2v8377
s2v8377 15
I'm reading the comments below in disbelief. Of course the P&W engines are ETOPS. All of UA's 777-222 and 777-222ER aircraft have P&W engines. The legacy Continental UA 777-224ERs have GE-90s which are also ETOPS.

Also how could anyone think this would have been okay over the ocean, especially in an ETOPS scenario. The right engine was on fire after the pilots used the fire suppression (unless the NTSB say otherwise). Thank goodness the crew was able to get the aircraft back to DEN before the fire spread beyond the engine. Also with the amount of buffeting going the fuselage and wing could have suffered damage or failure over an extended period of time.

Also something must be said for what an amazing aircraft the 777 is to suffer such a severe event and fire and still land safely, the same goes for the excellent airmanship by the UA crew.
21voyageur
Dan Chiasson 3
Not sure why there is disbelief as this site has participation ranging from seasoned pilots and AMEs through to enthusiasts and trolls. It is what it is mate.
jrollf
jrollf 0
You stated "how would this we OK for ETOPS...The right engine was on fire after the pilots used the fire suppression."

An engine fire is an engine fire, the impacts are virtually the same even if you have 4 engines. If the fire spreads it can cause catastrophic damage.

In the case of a massive engine fire that burns up the plane, number of engines and ETOPS operations are of no consequence in the final outcome.

Looking at the video, the fire appeared to be contained in/on the engine, in my non professional guess, residual oil and fuel were burning and in an extended ETOPS situation likely would of burned out before too long.
Boeing757RB211
Bruno Coimbra 2
Wasn't it not already proven that the "Engine Fire" was actually in-fact due to damage of the Hydraulic / Fuel lines to that engine even though both Hydraulic and Fuel lines WERE shut off / and valves closed after the catastrophic "Blade-Off" Event during high power climb out phase,,, and that Fire Suppression WAS actually used, and successful as after the engine was shut down and the Fire Warning Sounds and Notifications/Warnings actually went away? (Similarly but also obviously very different,,, to a situation such as the Front Wheel of your Car / Truck somehow having caught fire, you than putting out that fire with a portable extinguisher or something similar,,, but the Brake / Hydraulic lines have already been melted-damaged so now as your driving to a garage or home, Although the entire wheel is no longer on fire because you put it out,,, you still have highly flammable hydraulic brake fluid leaking and dripping onto VERY hot brake Disk / Rotor as your driving to safety which is going to of course cause smoke / even a small fire on the metal disk itself,,, NOT to be confused as being the same as the original "entire wheel on fire" situation that originally caused the damage resulting in the now unavoidable 2nd "on fire" looking situation?)
mdlacey
Matt Lacey 1
I was with some friends and their safety pilot that evening. The safety pilot said the fire ex would have been on the cowling and so would not have been used. If that’s not true, I’d love to be corrected so that my understanding improved.
ThinkingGuy
ThinkingGuy 4
Maybe an actual pilot can enlighten me, but I assume the procedure in such a scenario would be more involved than just "Turn back if < halfway, continue on if > halfway."

If you have a headwind, for example, wouldn't it be better to turn back, even if you were slightly past the halfway point, distance-wise?
dee9bee
dee9bee 11
An equal time point (ETP)is calculated for each flight that takes the wind into account. I didn't read Jasper's long post but as I recall, the fuel calculated includes a depressurization and descent to 10,000 feet. In other words, there is a lot to work with there, given the additional drag the #2 engine was producing.

What would concern me is that at least part of the fire didn't go out until AARF got to it after landing, according to one report.
10and250
10and250 2
ETOPS requirements would apply once the aircraft has flown beyond 60 minutes of flying time calculated from a suitable airport in still air (calm wind). For a B777, this would equate to about 435nm at a single engine speed of .84M/320KIAS.

Once the aircraft has entered ETOPS "operational" airspace, the turnback point (of which there may be several, depending on the total distance of the flight) is known as an ETP, or Equal TIME Point. The ETP will factor in the effects of wind for whatever altitude the aircraft is able to maintain when cruising on a single engine.

When there's a 100kt wind blowing from west to east across the Pacific Ocean, while the distance to continue flying west from the ETP towards Hilo, Hawaii (PHTO) may be a couple of hundred fewer miles than the distance to turn around and go back towards KSFO; from the ETP, the TIME enroute to either airport will essentially be the same.
Quirkyfrog
Robert Cowling -3
I wondered about that myself, as I flew from Seattle to Honolulu. There isn't a lot of land between those two airports. I'd imagine there would be some discussion on what to do. DAL 478 did the HNL to SEA run, and it's just a fraction over 6 hours. Almost entirely over water. I don't know what the glide rate of a 757-200 is, but I doubt it's long enough to glide from the middle of that route to an airport. Heading to California might be the best shot, but even that could be unreachable.

It's a good thing engine failures aren't more common, and dual engine failures extremely rare. At least dual engine failures due to mechanical issues.

Obviously if the plane was damaged in such a way to increase drag past the part of having a dead engine, the options would be a lot more limited.
user3956
user3956 0
I'm also curious about that, like what is the next available landing place on that route if you in in the middle of the distance between the California coast and HNL? I used to worry about flying from DFW to ICN but then I realized that a lot of times I've over land more than water for that journey, lots of alternatives. Where are the places to land between California and Hawaii?
suomel
ph gero 7
Etops ? Still prefer to have a plane with at least 3 engines but I'am old school
chris13
Chris Bryant 5
Thanks for sharing that article, Tom. It was surprisingly well written for a business magazine.
maverick49
Tom Novak 2
You welcome bro.
ADXbear
ADXbear 10
As a retired pilot and licensed aircraft dispatcher, I can assure you this flight would have been fine even if this had happened over the ocean.

I the airline world there is somthing called ETOPS. it's a special certification placed on certain aircraft that means it can fly on a single engine for so many minutes, in most cases it's well over 3 hours and do it safely.

Many things would need to be discussed, not only fuel load and mode point over the ocean, but the condition of the aircraft systems and flight characteristics.. in most cases the crew would return to a safe landing airport if not past halfway point. If beyond they would continue onward to the closest safest airport maybe not the original destination.

No matter what, things would be done in the safest manor possible. Hope that helps.
djames225
djames225 -1
ETOPS is also taking into account no other or minimal, damage to the aircraft. I am reserving judgement on how bad it could have been over the ocean. Seeing that large gapping hole in the fuselage, ruptured fuel lines, and damage to the wing, I want to hear what other systems, if any, may have ben on the verge of failing.
abowland
Andy Bowland -2
There was not a hole in the fuselage, the hole was in a composite wing root fairing--not the fuselage.

What ruptured fuel line?

What damage to the wing? A few dents--not a factor.

"...the verge of failing..." WHAT?
djames225
djames225 2
As I stated " if any, may have ben on the verge of failing." I did not state they would fail. Many look at a few pictures and think/state "oh that's nothing and will buff right out" until they take things apart and find out there was more damage than anticipated. There is a small tear in the wing behind engine 2, could it have increased in size while continuing to fly?
abowland
Andy Bowland -3
djames225
djames225 -1
As for "ruptured fuel line", one of the main items on engine out checklist with fire reported, is to cut off fuel and extinguish the fire. I can bet they tried all 3 extinguish techniques, yet clearly it did not go out. Hence ruptured fuel line feeding it.
abowland
Andy Bowland 4
You need an engine cowling for the fire bottles to be effective. Since the engine was spinning it had oil pressure, I would but it was oil feeding the fire.
abowland
Andy Bowland 0
First you need the cowling for the fire bottles to be effective.

Since the engine was spinning it had oil pressure, I'd guess it was oil feeding the fire.
djames225
djames225 0
How are you so sure it's a "no". Sorry but I have seen/heard FAA, NTSB and T.C. inspectors say the same "no" when just looking at a craft, yet they come to find out, it was a yes when it was tested.
RetiredCaptain
Jasper Buck -8
"...licensed aircraft dispatcher,..."

Certificate Aircraft Dispatcher. The word "license" does not appear on your certificate nor in FAR Part 65 Subpart C. (Aircraft Dispatchers.)

Just a fine point.

>;-)
ADAvViation
Antonello Davi 1
just like your pilot certificate.....too many times I hear "pilot license"
williambaker08
william baker 1
Correct me if im wrong but isn’t the PW4000-112 non etops?? I thought I read that someplace
mbrews
mbrews 4
ETOPS rating for the -112 inch fan versions of PW4000 can be found at this corporate link. Year 1995 and Year 2000 approvals

Good concise post later in thread by 10and250. Clarifies the Equal Time Point
not necessarily the equal Distance point for turnback

Easiest to remember ETOPS as meaning "Engines Turn or Passengers Swim " :)


https://prattwhitney.com/-/media/project/pw/pw-internet/pwu/pwu/products/commercial/ce_pw4000_112_fact.pdf?rev=b599a362b5374955815a62d95e49da6f
djames225
djames225 1
May 2000 > 207 minute ETOPS approval
TorstenHoff
Torsten Hoff -1
The flight in question was headed for Hawaii -- it better be ETOPS.
patpylot
patrick baker 4
that goes to the definition of ETOPS, and the aircraft would have flown on to the nearest runway long enough to land safely upon. It would have been a colorful, stressful time, but the trust that the pilots, crew, passengers and the airlines put into a two-engined trans-oceananic flight would have been up for discussion based on on the outcome. My belief is the 777 would have continued safely barring further complications.
Bernie20910
Bernie20910 -1
The passengers? Your average pax likely has no clue how many engines an aircraft has, even after boarding it, and even less of a clue how that might impact their overwater flight.
pilot62
Scott Campbell 2
the triple 7 has an amazing safety record given the miles flown, and yea the quickest return ....calculated with winds aloft considered
Not the same at all but, when flying a single engine small aircraft from the California coast to Catalina (26 miles) :) - we would fly I think at 8000, but with enough altitude (best glide speed) to make it back or there. More people have had issues landing and departing KAVX then crossing the short distance. ONE EXPENSIVE hamburger for sure
twschmidt4
Thomas Schmidt 1
A comment was made that the ac made a quick turnaround. I think 30 minutes is pretty long if you’re a pax on the ac.
steerts
Ron Streetenberger 1
My question is: Considering that the aircraft was past the point of no return, would it have been more fuel efficient on one engine or would the drag from the shut down engine negated any fuel savings? Expert opinions are welcome.
steerts
Ron Streetenberger 1
I meant to say imagining and not considering.
jrlazar4
JR Lazar 1
this video at the 10 minute mark, directly addresses your question: https://youtu.be/5hyP07BJAic
jrlazar4
JR Lazar 1
your question may be answered here: https://youtu.be/EwNCCrjMmeg
jericsg
Eric Johnson 1
Sorry if I missed it but the plane must have been heavy with fuel. Did it land with all the remaining fuel or dumped much of it first?
jrlazar4
JR Lazar 1
landed heavy, no dump. aircraft is designed to land in TAKE OFF configuration in the event of engine out on take off.
ElliotCannon
Elliot Cannon 1
Long over water flights used to be three or four engines. (I've flown both) They didn't go to two engines because it was SAFER. They did it because it was CHEAPER. Profit is EVERYTHING.
RetiredCaptain
Jasper Buck -2
Complete guidance for ETOPS can be found in Advisory Circular 120-42B Extended Operations (ETOPS and Polar Operations)

https://www.faa.gov/documentlibrary/media/advisory_circular/120-42b.pdf

The rules are:
121.161 Airplane limitations: Type of route.
121.162 ETOPS Type Design Approval Basis.
Appendix P to Part 121 - Requirements for ETOPS and Polar Operations





Here are the rules for ETOPs.


Appendix P to Part 121 - Requirements for ETOPS and Polar Operations

The FAA approves ETOPS in accordance with the requirements and limitations in this appendix.

Section I. ETOPS Approvals: Airplanes with Two engines.

(a) Propulsion system reliability for ETOPS.

(1) Before the FAA grants ETOPS operational approval, the operator must be able to demonstrate the ability to achieve and maintain the level of propulsion system reliability, if any, that is required by § 21.4(b)(2) of this chapter for the ETOPS-approved airplane-engine combination to be used.

(2) Following ETOPS operational approval, the operator must monitor the propulsion system reliability for the airplane-engine combination used in ETOPS, and take action as required by § 121.374(i) for the specified IFSD rates.

(b) 75 Minutes ETOPS -

(1) Caribbean/Western Atlantic Area. The FAA grants approvals to conduct

ETOPS with maximum diversion times up to 75 minutes on Western Atlantic/Caribbean area routes as follows:

(i) The FAA reviews the airplane-engine combination to ensure the absence of factors that could prevent safe operations. The airplane-engine combination need not be type-design-approved for ETOPS; however, it must have sufficient favorable experience to demonstrate to the Administrator a level of reliability appropriate for 75-minute ETOPS.

(ii) The certificate holder must comply with the requirements of § 121.633 for time-limited system planning.

(iii) The certificate holder must operate in accordance with the ETOPS authority as contained in its operations specifications.

(iv) The certificate holder must comply with the maintenance program requirements of § 121.374, except that a pre-departure service check before departure of the return flight is not required.

(2) Other Areas. The FAA grants approvals to conduct ETOPS with maximum diversion times up to 75 minutes on other than Western Atlantic/Caribbean area routes as follows:

(i) The FAA reviews the airplane-engine combination to ensure the absence of factors that could prevent safe operations. The airplane-engine combination need not be type-design-approved for ETOPS; however, it must have sufficient favorable experience to demonstrate to the Administrator a level of reliability appropriate for 75-minute ETOPS.

(ii) The certificate holder must comply with the requirements of § 121.633 for time-limited system planning.

(iii) The certificate holder must operate in accordance with the ETOPS authority as contained in its operations specifications.

(iv) The certificate holder must comply with the maintenance program requirements of § 121.374.

(v) The certificate holder must comply with the MEL in its operations specifications for 120-minute ETOPS.

(c) 90-minutes ETOPS (Micronesia). The FAA grants approvals to conduct ETOPS with maximum diversion times up to 90 minutes on Micronesian area routes as follows:

(1) The airplane-engine combination must be type-design approved for ETOPS of at least 120-minutes.

(2) The certificate holder must operate in accordance with the ETOPS authority as contained in its operations specifications.

(3) The certificate holder must comply with the maintenance program requirements of § 121.374, except that a pre-departure service check before departure of the return flight is not required.

(4) The certificate holder must comply with the MEL requirements in its operations specifications for 120-minute ETOPS.

(d) 120-minute ETOPS. The FAA grants approvals to conduct ETOPS with maximum diversion times up to 120 minutes as follows:

(1) The airplane-engine combination must be type-design-approved for ETOPS of at least 120 minutes.

(2) The certificate holder must operate in accordance with the ETOPS authority as contained in its operations specifications.

(3) The certificate holder must comply with the maintenance program requirements of § 121.374.

(4) The certificate holder must comply with the MEL requirements for 120-minute ETOPS.

(e) 138-Minute ETOPS. The FAA grants approval to conduct ETOPS with maximum diversion times up to 138 minutes as follows:

(1) Operators with 120-minute ETOPS approval. The FAA grants 138-minute ETOPS approval as an extension of an existing 120-minute ETOPS approval as follows:

(i) The authority may be exercised only for specific flights for which the 120-minute diversion time must be exceeded.

(ii) For these flight-by-flight exceptions, the airplane-engine combination must be type-design-approved for ETOPS up to at least 120 minutes. The capability of the airplane's time-limited systems may not be less than 138 minutes calculated in accordance with § 121.633.

(iii) The certificate holder must operate in accordance with the ETOPS authority as contained in its operations specifications.

(iv) The certificate holder must comply with the maintenance program requirements of § 121.374.

(v) The certificate holder must comply with minimum equipment list (MEL) requirements in its operations specifications for “beyond 120 minutes ETOPS”. Operators without a “beyond 120-minute ETOPS” MEL may apply through their responsible Flight Standards office for a modified MEL which satisfies the master MEL policy for system/component relief in ETOPS beyond 120 minutes.

(vi) The certificate holder must conduct training for maintenance, dispatch, and flight crew personnel regarding differences between 138-minute ETOPS authority and its previously-approved 120-minute ETOPS authority.

(2) Operators with existing 180-minute ETOPS approval. The FAA grants approvals to conduct 138-minute ETOPS (without the limitation in paragraph (e)(1)(i) of section I of this appendix) to certificate holders with existing 180-minute ETOPS approval as follows:

(i) The airplane-engine combination must be type-design-approved for ETOPS of at least 180 minutes.

(ii) The certificate holder must operate in accordance with the ETOPS authority as contained in its operations specifications.

(iii) The certificate holder must comply with the maintenance program requirements of § 121.374.

(iv) The certificate holder must comply with the MEL requirements for “beyond 120 minutes ETOPS.”

(v) The certificate holder must conduct training for maintenance, dispatch and flight crew personnel for differences between 138-minute ETOPS diversion approval and its previously approved 180-minute ETOPS diversion authority.

(f) 180-minute ETOPS. The FAA grants approval to conduct ETOPS with diversion times up to 180 minutes as follows:

(1) For these operations the airplane-engine combination must be type-design-approved for ETOPS of at least 180 minutes.

(2) The certificate holder must operate in accordance with the ETOPS authority as contained in its operations specifications.

(3) The certificate holder must comply with the maintenance program requirements of § 121.374.

(4) The certificate holder must comply with the MEL requirements for “beyond 120 minutes ETOPS.”

(g) Greater than 180-minute ETOPS. The FAA grants approval to conduct ETOPS greater than 180 minutes. The following are requirements for all operations greater than 180 minutes.

(1) The FAA grants approval only to certificate holders with existing 180-minute ETOPS operating authority for the airplane-engine combination to be operated.

(2) The certificate holder must have previous ETOPS experience satisfactory to the Administrator.

(3) In selecting ETOPS Alternate Airports, the operator must make every effort to plan ETOPS with maximum diversion distances of 180 minutes or less, if possible. If conditions necessitate using an ETOPS Alternate Airport beyond 180 minutes, the route may be flown only if the requirements for the specific operating area in paragraph (h) or (i) of section I of this appendix are met.

(4) The certificate holder must inform the flight crew each time an airplane is proposed for dispatch for greater than 180 minutes and tell them why the route was selected.

(5) In addition to the equipment specified in the certificate holder's MEL for 180-minute ETOPS, the following systems must be operational for dispatch:

(i) The fuel quantity indicating system.

(ii) The APU (including electrical and pneumatic supply and operating to the APU's designed capability).

(iii) The auto throttle system.

(iv) The communication system required by § 121.99(d) or § 121.122(c), as applicable.

(v) One-engine-inoperative auto-land capability, if flight planning is predicated on its use.

(6) The certificate holder must operate in accordance with the ETOPS authority as contained in its operations specifications.

(7) The certificate holder must comply with the maintenance program requirements of § 121.374.

(h) 207-minute ETOPS in the North Pacific Area of Operations.

(1) The FAA grants approval to conduct ETOPS with maximum diversion times up to 207 minutes in the North Pacific Area of Operations as an extension to 180-minute ETOPS authority to be used on an exception basis. This exception may be used only on a flight-by-flight basis when an ETOPS Alternate Airport is not available within 180 minutes for reasons such as political or military concerns; volcanic activity; temporary airport conditions; and airport weather below dispatch requirements or other weather related events.

(2) The nearest available ETOPS Alternate Airport within 207 minutes diversion time must be specified in the dispatch or flight release.

(3) In conducting such a flight the certificate holder must consider Air Traffic Service's preferred track.

(4) The airplane-engine combination must be type-design-approved for ETOPS of at least 180 minutes. The approved time for the airplane's most limiting ETOPS significant system and most limiting cargo-fire suppression time for those cargo and baggage compartments required by regulation to have fire-suppression systems must be at least 222 minutes.

(5) The certificate holder must track how many times 207-minute authority is used.

(i) 240-minute ETOPS in the North Polar Area, in the area north of the NOPAC, and in the Pacific Ocean north of the equator.

(1) The FAA grants approval to conduct 240-minute ETOPS authority with maximum diversion times in the North Polar Area, in the area north of the NOPAC area, and the Pacific Ocean area north of the equator as an extension to 180-minute ETOPS authority to be used on an exception basis. This exception may be used only on a flight-by-flight basis when an ETOPS Alternate Airport is not available within 180 minutes. In that case, the nearest available ETOPS Alternate Airport within 240 minutes diversion time must be specified in the dispatch or flight release.

(2) This exception may be used in the North Polar Area and in the area north of NOPAC only in extreme conditions particular to these areas such as volcanic activity, extreme cold weather at en-route airports, airport weather below dispatch requirements, temporary airport conditions, and other weather related events. The criteria used by the certificate holder to decide that extreme weather precludes using an airport must be established by the certificate holder, accepted by the FAA, and published in the certificate holder's manual for the use of dispatchers and pilots.

(3) This exception may be used in the Pacific Ocean area north of the equator only for reasons such as political or military concern, volcanic activity, airport weather below dispatch requirements, temporary airport conditions and other weather related events.

(4) The airplane-engine combination must be type design approved for ETOPS greater than 180 minutes.

(j) 240-minute ETOPS in areas South of the equator.

(1) The FAA grants approval to conduct ETOPS with maximum diversion times of up to 240 minutes in the following areas:

(i) Pacific oceanic areas between the U.S. West coast and Australia, New Zealand and Polynesia.

(ii) South Atlantic oceanic areas.

(iii) Indian Ocean areas.

(iv) Oceanic areas between Australia and South America.

(2) The operator must designate the nearest available ETOPS Alternate Airports along the planned route of flight.

(3) The airplane-engine combination must be type-design-approved for ETOPS greater than 180 minutes.

(k) ETOPS beyond 240 minutes.

(1) The FAA grants approval to conduct ETOPS with diversion times beyond 240 minutes for operations between specified city pairs on routes in the following areas:

(i) The Pacific oceanic areas between the U.S. west coast and Australia, New Zealand, and Polynesia;

(ii) The South Atlantic oceanic areas;

(iii) The Indian Oceanic areas; and

(iv) The oceanic areas between Australia and South America, and the South Polar Area.

(2) This approval is granted to certificate holders who have been operating under 180-minute or greater ETOPS authority for at least 24 consecutive months, of which at least 12 consecutive months must be under 240-minute ETOPS authority with the airplane-engine combination to be used.

(3) The operator must designate the nearest available ETOPS alternate or alternates along the planned route of flight.

(4) For these operations, the airplane-engine combination must be type-design-approved for ETOPS greater than 180 minutes.

Section II. ETOPS Approval: Passenger-carrying Airplanes With More Than Two Engines.

(a) The FAA grants approval to conduct ETOPS, as follows:

(1) Except as provided in § 121.162, the airplane-engine combination must be type-design-approved for ETOPS.

(2) The operator must designate the nearest available ETOPS Alternate Airports within 240 minutes diversion time (at one-engine-inoperative cruise speed under standard conditions in still air). If an ETOPS alternate is not available within 240 minutes, the operator must designate the nearest available ETOPS Alternate Airports along the planned route of flight.

(3) The MEL limitations for the authorized ETOPS diversion time apply.

(i) The Fuel Quantity Indicating System must be operational.

(ii) The communications systems required by § 121.99(d) or § 121.122(c) must be operational.

(4) The certificate holder must operate in accordance with the ETOPS authority as contained in its operations specifications.

Section III. Approvals for operations whose airplane routes are planned to traverse either the North Polar or South Polar Areas.

(a) Except for intrastate operations within the State of Alaska, no certificate holder may operate an aircraft in the North Polar Area or South Polar Area, unless authorized by the FAA.

(b) In addition to any of the applicable requirements of sections I and II of this appendix, the certificate holder's operations specifications must contain the following:

(1) The designation of airports that may be used for en-route diversions and the requirements the airports must meet at the time of diversion.

(2) Except for supplemental all-cargo operations, a recovery plan for passengers at designated diversion airports.

(3) A fuel-freeze strategy and procedures for monitoring fuel freezing.

(4) A plan to ensure communication capability for these operations.

(5) An MEL for these operations.

(6) A training plan for operations in these areas.

(7) A plan for mitigating crew exposure to radiation during solar flare activity.

(8) A plan for providing at least two cold weather anti-exposure suits in the aircraft, to protect crewmembers during outside activity at a diversion airport with extreme climatic conditions. The FAA may relieve the certificate holder from this requirement if the season of the year makes the equipment unnecessary.


That's it in a nutshell;

Best

Capt J Buck

ATP DC-9 B757 B767
Flight Instructor
Ground Instructor
Aircraft Dispatcher
A&P Mechanic
Air Traffic Controller
FAA Aviation Safety Inspector (Ops & Aws) ((Ret.)
FAA certified accident investigator (Ret.)
ICAO Panel Member
Aviation Safety Consultantt
jhal
John Haller 1
The first (2) above is relevant, as if the engine failure rate increases above a threshold, the ETOPS rating drops as well. The engine reliability in Mean Time Between Failures (MTBF) combined with Mean Time To Repair (MTTR), gives a probability of a second failure before fixing the first failure. But, this calculation depends on the failures not being correlated. If these engines don't get mixed between planes, fatigue failures are likely to be correlated, since fatigue is age and stress related. This can make a dual-engine failure more likely, and potentially could cause the engine type/plane type to be retired.

I would be more likely to decline a P&W powered 777 than a 737 MAX. I think they have fixed the latter, while the former world melt the fan-blades down and cast new blades.
cougardad
cougardad 0
ETOPS. engines turn or passengers swim. thats why you calculate the ETP to the second decimal before you go feet wet & manage the FP every 30 minutes with how goze it.

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

ChristianBase
Christian Base -2
There would have been less to clean up and it would have diverted and landed safely, thanks to ETOPS.
Sensationalist journalism.
Next story.
pvn
Paul Novarese 3
did you actually read the article? that's essentially what it said, it wasn't sensationalist at all. Normie humans don't know what ETOPS is and this is a legitimate question people might have.
ChristianBase
Christian Base -2
Yes I did, but the headline was sensationalistic, and "click-bait"-ish.

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

Boeing757RB211
Bruno Coimbra 2
Granted that was some impressive aviation skill, airmanship and one VERY odd and intense situation ending in a MOSTLY really great landing and evacuation after such an incident. But I don’t see how it has to do with Engine Out accidents or incidents over water or ETOPS Ratings and how they work as the aircraft your referring to,,, Aloha Flight 243 an Aloha Air N73711 “Queen Liliuokalani” wasn’t even ETOPS certified and Aloha Airlines itself only ever had 2 737-200’s that were ETOPS certified on N817AL and N808AL and those 2 were only certified under/up to 120min-ETOPS Certification but both aircraft N817AL ETOPS certification ended in late 2003, beginning 2004 and N808AL also ended sometime in 2004.....

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

تسجيل الدخول

ليس لديك حساب؟ سجل الآن (مجانا) لتستمع بمميزات مخصصة، وتنبيهات الرحلات، وغير ذلك الكثير!
يستخدم موقع الويب هذا ملفات تعريف الارتباط. باستخدام موقع الويب هذا وعمل المزيد من عمليات التنقل خلاله، يعني هذا قبولك لملفات تعريف الارتباط.
استبعد
هل علمت بأن خاصية تتبع الرحلة التابعة لـFlightAware مدعومة بواسطة الإعلانات؟
يمكنك مساعدتنا بالإبقاء على موقع FlightAware مجاني بدون مقابل من خلال السماح بالإعلانات من موقع FlightAware.com. نحن نعمل بكل كد لجعل إعلاناتنا ملائمة ومناسبة وأن تكون هذه الإعلانات غير ملحوظة من أجل إنشاء تجربة رائعة. يمكن بكل سرعة وسهولة السماح لـإعلانات القائمة البيضاء الموجودة على FlightAware، أو الرجاء مراجعة الحسابات المميزة الخاصة بنا.
استبعد