[Airlinelifer]

BoeingBoy, on 28 January 2012 - 06:01 PM, said:

As I said, a string of errors led to running out of fuel and the number of engines had nothing to do with it. In fact, I guess it could be argued in the Air Transat case that they had one too many engines - the one that developed the leak should have been taken off and left behind which would have prevented the fuel leak with led to running out of fuel...

The original premise, which was the subject of FWAAA's reply, was that four engines were better over "difficult terrain" - if one quits there are more still operating if the plane has 4 instead of 2. The Air Transat accident doesn't have anything to do with that premise. When a plane runs out of fuel the engines stop no matter how many engines there are.

Jim

To EOLESENS reply - "More to the point, when's the last time you heard of an actual inflight shut-down on an A330 or a Boeing twin in ETOPS territory?... "
*****I answered the Air Transat Flight 236 (A330)*****
I can see Avianca Flight 52 to New York that had pilot / ATC (mis)communication with weather delays, that caused the aircraft to run out of fuel.

The Air Transat flight did lead to a no fuel flameout (engine shutdown caused by design flaw/improper maintenance) and had to glide 65 miles to the Azores.

Thats about it, I did not reply/mention/answer to the twin vs. four debate ....

[tech2101]

Dupe

[tech2101]

BoeingBoy, on 28 January 2012 - 06:01 PM, said:

The original premise, which was the subject of FWAAA's reply, was that four engines were better over "difficult terrain"

I have only maintiained aircraft engines. Although I have never been an ATP, I do know that terrain has nothing to do with engine performance unless you have a CFIT or worse.

[BoeingBoy]

Airlinelifer, on 28 January 2012 - 06:30 PM, said:

Thats about it, I did not reply/mention/answer to the twin vs. four debate ....

No, but E did and that was the context his post, which you answered, must be taken in. I read his "inflight shutdown" as meaning either precautionary shutdown or failure due to a mechanical issue - not running out of fuel.

Jim

[Airlinelifer]

BoeingBoy, on 28 January 2012 - 07:13 PM, said:

No, but E did and that was the context his post, which you answered, must be taken in. I read his "inflight shutdown" as meaning either precautionary shutdown or failure due to a mechanical issue - not running out of fuel.

Jim

When you "read" into someone elses post or define the "meaning" of someone elses post, your.................assuming.

I just answered the question.
Twin engine 767 or 330.... check
ETOPS flight....check
Engine shutdown....check
Cause of engine shutdown....improper maintenance causing loss of fuel in flight....check.

Let Eolesen decide if he agrees with my post or not

[BoeingBoy]

Airlinelifer, on 28 January 2012 - 08:41 PM, said:

When you "read" into someone elses post or define the "meaning" of someone elses post, your.................assuming.

We're both guilty of that since E's question wasn't directed to you but the poster that claimed a preference for 4 engine airplanes in ETOPS flight - I assume that E meant shutdown as due to a mechanical issue since that was the basis for the preference for more engines and you're assuming that E meant it as for any reason including fuel exhaustion since his question didn't explicitly say otherwise.

Jim

[eolesen]

The point about a shutdown was to rebut the two vs three or four engine safety issue mentioned by Bears. There's no real evidence to support twins being less safe over "critical territory" than a three or four engines....

The AT incident was fuel, just like the AC Gimli Glider and the UA DC8, and Avianca 707 on Long Island.. None of those had anything to do with the number of engines.

I'm talking about an engine issue forcing a diversion. I know of one on UA over the Pacific. Three hours or so of single engine flight, and an uneventful landing in Hawaii.