Irrational: I avoid 2-engine 777 transpacific
Nov 2, 2006 | 9:58 am
#46
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: BDL
Programs: NWA Platinum, HHonors Diamond, SPG, YX, AA
Posts: 5,354
Originally Posted by Justme123456
I used to be the same. Probably a bit OT, but I broke my longest standing irrational policy of always touching the outside of a plane (i.e. somewhere around the door as you enter) prior sitting down in my seat. When I travelled as a kid with my father (he worked for the U.N. at the time, so we, as a family, travelled a lot with him to sometimes very obscure places), my fear peaked when we flew into Brazzaville, Congo and the conditions (plane, airport, ground crew) looked unstable, at best. My father told me to pat the plane like I did my dog at home and that would ensure nothing would happen to the plane or us. Well, fast forward thirty years and hundreds (if not thousands) of "pats" later, I decided to stop the ritual. Even though that same year, I expreienced two emergency landings (1st in LAS while flying from CVG - LAX for running out of gas and 2nd time in STL for an engine fire), I've never looked back. Well, almost never. I snuck a "pat" in on 9/15/01 flying from LAX to AMS 
.
.
Nov 2, 2006 | 10:04 am
#47
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: LAS - I'm All In!
Programs: UA 1K 1MM, Marriott PP
Posts: 3,639
Originally Posted by Braniff
A 747 of course !
BTW: I was told by a colleague that the 757 had the most "over-powered" engines needed for a plane its size - because it was I suppose the first in this area. He said that a one engine 757 was better than a 3-enginge DC-8.
BTW: I was told by a colleague that the 757 had the most "over-powered" engines needed for a plane its size - because it was I suppose the first in this area. He said that a one engine 757 was better than a 3-enginge DC-8.
Nov 2, 2006 | 11:19 am
#48
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: KSRQ
Programs: TraumamedAir, UA & DL elite, AA gate louse
Posts: 243
Originally Posted by trekwars2000
This is true. A 752 can takeoff on 1 engine from dead stop on most runways. A 752 can takeoff on runways under a mile in length. (I love taking off on a 752 from SNA) A 752 has engines that put out ~35K lb thrust, where as a 738 and 739 (about the same pax loads) only put out like 24K each.
Nov 2, 2006 | 3:05 pm
#50
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: LA
Programs: UA Lifetime Gold / BA GGL&CCR
Posts: 2,483
Originally Posted by WRCSolberg
I faile to see how that refutes what he said. If you run out of fuel, all engines will stop, it doesn't matter if you have 2, 3, or 4. A common cause that causes two engines to fail on a twin engine, will indeed cause all four engines to fail on a quad. So it's a moot point that you're trying to make.
The simple fact of the matter is, is that any ETOPS certified twin engine is every bit as safe as any four engined bird. To my knowledge, no ETOPS certified twin engine has ever crashed due to both engines failing from separate causes.
The simple fact of the matter is, is that any ETOPS certified twin engine is every bit as safe as any four engined bird. To my knowledge, no ETOPS certified twin engine has ever crashed due to both engines failing from separate causes.
Nov 2, 2006 | 3:53 pm
#51
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Global
Programs: BA Gold - HH Diamond
Posts: 3,542
I always do this, three taps before entering the plane. Don't know how/why I started. 
Originally Posted by Justme123456
I used to be the same. Probably a bit OT, but I broke my longest standing irrational policy of always touching the outside of a plane (i.e. somewhere around the door as you enter) prior sitting down in my seat.
Nov 2, 2006 | 4:06 pm
#52
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 1,728
Originally Posted by Tango
The 2/4 engine debate is not logical but emotional. Ask yourself this question. If you are 1/2 way across the Pacific and one engine goes out, would your rather be on a 777 or 747?
It's also why Virgin used that slogan...to play to people's emotions.
Nov 2, 2006 | 5:45 pm
#53
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Ireland
Programs: No longer bothered chasing FF status.
Posts: 2,345
Originally Posted by Justme123456
....................policy of always touching the outside of a plane (i.e. somewhere around the door as you enter) prior sitting down in my seat.
Originally Posted by MKEbound
Not that I feel it brings me luck, but I ALWAYS touch the outside of the plane was I board. I think I just like to feel connected to the plane!
I find it amazing to read that there are others who have the same ritual as I. I guess it goes to show that no matter what you do, there is someone else somewhere in the world with the same habits
Originally Posted by Tango
The 2/4 engine debate is not logical but emotional. Ask yourself this question. If you are 1/2 way across the Pacific and one engine goes out, would your rather be on a 777 or 747?
If you lose an engine on a Quad, youre only down 25% of your power.
But on a twin, an engine out represents a 50% loss in power..thats half your thrust gone boys n girls !!!
But I dont think well be able schedule around the twins as easily for too much longer. The airlines are getting more & more twins these days & with the likes of the 787 coming out therell even be more coming on stream.
Still Id rather be on a twin any day sooner than on Airbuss new Whale Jet
Itll be a long time before I set foot on one of those I can tell you..Too big & way too many people !!!
Last edited by kered; Nov 2, 2006 at 5:54 pm Reason: To add more !
Nov 2, 2006 | 7:15 pm
#54
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: the eastern shore
Programs: UA 2P
Posts: 153
Originally Posted by TTT
Just remember, that 2 engine aircraft are built to fly on one engine for quite a while.
Nov 2, 2006 | 8:00 pm
#55
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY, USA
Programs: DL SM Plat, B6 TrueBlue, UA MP, AAdvantage
Posts: 10,008
One aspect of ETOPS that hasn't gotten much attention is that ETOPS-180 means that possible flight plans can be more restrictive, less efficient and thus can extend flight times.
For the most part, of course, this is not a major issue, because mot tranpac polar and TATL standard flight plans easily fall into the 180-minute clause.
For the most part, of course, this is not a major issue, because mot tranpac polar and TATL standard flight plans easily fall into the 180-minute clause.
Nov 2, 2006 | 8:06 pm
#56
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY, USA
Programs: DL SM Plat, B6 TrueBlue, UA MP, AAdvantage
Posts: 10,008
Originally Posted by ESflyer
My friend's brother who flew for United refused to fly a two engine plane to Europe. Said that there are points in the flight where, if you lose one engine, you won't make it.
I think a scarier proposition is flying a route like LAX-SYD or LAX-AKL, which is not possible on ETOPS. There are points, where if 1 of the 4 engines goes out on the 747 that run these routes, you'll have a tough time making it to an appropriate landing strip. Once you've passed the Hawaiian archipelago and head southwest there is very little of any landfall till Polynesia.
Nov 2, 2006 | 8:37 pm
#57
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 187
Originally Posted by TWA Fan 1
That's really just not right. That's why two-engine planes have ETOPS restrictions. These are designed so, in case of engine failure, the a/c is always within range of an appropriate field.
I think a scarier proposition is flying a route like LAX-SYD or LAX-AKL, which is not possible on ETOPS. There are points, where if 1 of the 4 engines goes out on the 747 that run these routes, you'll have a tough time making it to an appropriate landing strip. Once you've passed the Hawaiian archipelago and head southwest there is very little of any landfall till Polynesia.
I think a scarier proposition is flying a route like LAX-SYD or LAX-AKL, which is not possible on ETOPS. There are points, where if 1 of the 4 engines goes out on the 747 that run these routes, you'll have a tough time making it to an appropriate landing strip. Once you've passed the Hawaiian archipelago and head southwest there is very little of any landfall till Polynesia.
Nov 2, 2006 | 9:22 pm
#58
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Pittsburgh
Programs: MR LT Titanium, AA LT PLT, UA SLV, Avis PreferredPlus, HH Gold, Hertz PC, National Executive, etc.
Posts: 31,677
Originally Posted by rar indeed
I'm not sure why there should be such a difference... are 4 engine planes better-maintained and are the engines in 4 engine planes more reliable? I bet the answer is no. I view each event as having a set probability of failure given the maintenance, age, etc etc of the engine, not the configuration in which it is used.
(yeah, yeah wise guy, I know - independent trials, 1% probability of dual independent failures, actual probabilities are slightly lower.... it's late and I don't feel like doing the math. EDIT - OK I did the math, 81% vs. 66% probability of success)
Back to my original question. A twin-engine can obviously operate on one engine. Does a four engine plane require three, or can it operate on two? Three engine plane?
Nov 2, 2006 | 9:23 pm
#59
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: PHX
Programs: AA Peon Gold
Posts: 2,939
I think a scarier proposition is flying a route like LAX-SYD or LAX-AKL, which is not possible on ETOPS. There are points, where if 1 of the 4 engines goes out on the 747 that run these routes, you'll have a tough time making it to an appropriate landing strip. Once you've passed the Hawaiian archipelago and head southwest there is very little of any landfall till Polynesia.
But on a twin, an engine out represents a 50% loss in power..thats half your thrust gone boys n girls !!!
It's not a refutation at all. Just provided some information for recent incidents. That's all.
Nov 2, 2006 | 9:51 pm
#60
In memoriam
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: IAD, BOS, PVD
Programs: UA, US, AS, Marriott, Radisson, Hilton
Posts: 7,203
Originally Posted by traumamed
Not to mention that 757s must be given "heavy" callsigns due to the amount of wake turbulence produced.
you'll find that almost never is a 757 designated "heavy" any more (though
I heard some such in the '90s). There is, as you implied, special mention
"caution wake turbulence" when a 57 is going past, though.