4 engines 4 long haul..

According to a link on the front page of V-Flyer to the following page
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/ ... source=rss
the writer claims that the new 330 minutes ETOPS ruling should indicate the end of Virgin buying A340's or at least 4 engine jets.

I personally am one of the passengers quoted as taking a sense of reassurance by having 4 engines.

4 engine jets may well be less 'green' than 2 engines but as Gordon Brown has seen fit to increase passenger duties despite the likes of VS comitting to lower emission I can quite honestly say "I don't care". I don't want to start a whole green issue as this is each to their own.

I think the article is overly harsh against VS even though at present they are not particularly in my 'preferred supplier list'

Paul

330 minute ETOPS strikes me as madness anyway.

The fact that twinjets have been flying ETOPS since about 1983 without incident won't count a lot on a plane with one engine on fire when it has a 330-minute limp into the nearest appropriate airstrip on the one good remaining engine...

That's five-and-a-half hours!

ETOPS up to 180 minutes I can live with, but much more than that, and it's tempting fate. It is not as if there haven't been cases of multiple engine failure before. A BA 747 lost all four engines due to volcanic ash ingestion in the early 80s, before managing to relight two of them later, and a similar scenario caused triple failure on a Tristar, IIRC.

Had either of those incidents involved planes with only two engines, the crew might well have been unable to restart them before crashing.

We'd only need one disaster with a twin losing both engines for public confidence in ETOPS to evaporate overnight. I can almost hear the "why did we ever think this was safe" howls of those with 20/20 hindsight.

I hope VS factor this in to their musings about what metal to buy in future.......

[preiffer]

Hmm. A reporter from Seattle praising the Boeing 2 engine over an Airbus 4 engine offering? [:w]

While it masks its message as a "2 vs 4" story - it's a thinly disguised "go" at Airbus vs. Boeing in my view.

Last year, Boeing won orders for 76 777s. Airbus won orders for only a handful of A340s. In 2005, airlines around the world placed orders for 154 777s. Airbus had 15 orders for the A340.

Read the whole article - there's more Boeing vs. Airbus than 2 vs 4 throughout.


Yawn...

[Scrooge]

Of course what the writer seems to be missing is that these are FAA rules, the last time I looked all of VS's planes had little Union Jack's on them, not Star's and Stripes, so it's down to the CAA to set the ETOPS rules for VS.

There is a lot of hype over ETOPS and reliability of jet engines. True, relying on just one of them to keep you safe above the pacific ocean for 5 1/2 hours would probably focus your mind. But in reality the are incrediably reliable and incrediably well monitored.

In the UK 40% of our electricity is generated by the self same technology. The same series of engine that will power the A380 is busy powering your computer right now, and will quite possibly run for months before shutting down for a maintenance inspection.
True, electricity generating gas turbines are not subject to the same environmental extremes and high percentage of power usage as aero engines, but they certainly run for a lot longer.

Gas Turbines are basically very simple, more often than not it is their support systems (fuel/lubrication/control/hydaulics) that fail and each engine on an aircraft has multiple support systems.

That said when, you are down to one engine mid ocean, I'm sure you start hoping what happened to the other engine wasn't a problem common across all the systems..... such as a fuel leak. Then again, 4 engines can run out of fuel just as quickly as 2!

Shropshire lad

ETOPS up to 180 minutes I can live with, but much more than that, and it's tempting fate. It is not as if there haven't been cases of multiple engine failure before. A BA 747 lost all four engines due to volcanic ash ingestion in the early 80s, before managing to relight two of them later, and a similar scenario caused triple failure on a Tristar, IIRC.

Had either of those incidents involved planes with only two engines, the crew might well have been unable to restart them before crashing

The last part is unfair and misleading. If you can start one engine on a 777/767/A330/320/737, then you can maintain level flight. If you can only start one engine on a 747/340 you are still going down.

Add into the mix, that the twin engine aircraft, I've mentioned, cruise, on average a lot higher then the 4 engine ones (with a few exceptions) means that the crew have a greater glide time to sort out the problem and get the engine(s) restarted.

Fundamentally, it comes down to reliability and probability. I can't think of an incident where two or more engines have failed from a mechanical failiure on the same flight.

The BA example you mention would've happened to any aircraft type that flew through that ash cloud. There has been the Canadian A330 that had a fuel leak over the atlantic and then glided safely into the azores.

Modern day jet engines are simply amazing pieces of kit.

All the best

YS[y]

The last part is unfair and misleading. If you can start one engine on a 777/767/A330/320/737, then you can maintain level flight. If you can only start one engine on a 747/340 you are still going down.

But a four-engined a/c has to lose three times as many engines in the process to reach that stage.

As you can see from my signature, I much prefer to be in a 'plane with four engines, rather than two. All I can say is that if you're over the Pacific and have lost an engine, it would be a lot more reassuring to have three rather than one left.

VS.

Just to throw my two pennies worth in!! [}:)]

I use to be very much of the camp 4 engines is better but having seen recent advancement in engines I can honestly say it dosen't bother me too much.

4 engines may offer reassurance to the passengers on board but today it seems to offer only that. Look at the 343 climb rate, it is shocking compared say to a 777. Well at least that is what I have gleaned from what I have heard/read. But this article does seem to be very A v B-- in Airbus' defense the 320 family is selling fantastically and the 330/340 family is up to something like 120 frames on the books.

TBH I only have to look at the size of the 777 engine to realise that given any problem I will be safe, couple that with the fact that across the Atlantic even if I am a 763 or a 757 I am always near to airports that can handle me in an emergency such as KEF, SNN, PIK, Goose Bay, Bangor, Bermuda, St Johns, Azores etc etc and everything seems just fine.

With regards to the whole pollution thing- I personally am in the camp that the aviation industry is being rather unfairly picked on.

I know some people dislike the -300 rate of climb, but I think it's great[y] Much better views;)

VS.

Well if the writer actually did research and wasn't obviously biased he would realize that VS has been discretely removing the slogan from existing and new aircraft since about early summer. According to Denzil from a post a while back, this is so VS can order A330s. I don't know about the latter statement's truth, but it is very noticeable that less and less aircraft spot the semi-famous slogan.

Sorry but to quote my Dad... "Fewer and fewer"

Originally posted by VS-EWR
Well if the writer actually did research and wasn't obviously biased he would realize that VS has been discretely removing the slogan from existing and new aircraft since about early summer ... this is so VS can order A330s

In sincerely hope not - not that I have anything against 2 v 4 and all that, just that the 330 compared to the 777 is a horribly cramped little aircraft and I really dislike it.

As to the original article, I agree with Paul, am article criticle of Airbus from Seattle, nothing unusual there then.

Originally posted by slinky09

Originally posted by VS-EWR
Well if the writer actually did research and wasn't obviously biased he would realize that VS has been discretely removing the slogan from existing and new aircraft since about early summer ... this is so VS can order A330s

In sincerely hope not - not that I have anything against 2 v 4 and all that, just that the 330 compared to the 777 is a horribly cramped little aircraft and I really dislike it.

As to the original article, I agree with Paul, am article criticle of Airbus from Seattle, nothing unusual there then.

Is the 330 not the same fuselage and internal config as the 340? True, neither compares to the cavernous 777, but when I have been unfortunate enough to travel in Y on one of them, the 3+3+3 config is horrible, but 2+2+2 in J is VERY nice [y].


Back to the 2 or 4 argument. Is the real issue not engine reliability, but shear distance from a safe landing for what ever reason.

Since ETOPS came about (mid 80's?) how many aircraft have had to divert due to engine failure at the maximum limit of their ETOPS certification?
I bet nearly all engine shutdowns and diversions these days are precautionary and the divert is because they happen to be near a convenient airport to handle the passengers and get engineering support.

How many more aircraft (daily occurrences) divert due to passenger health, weather encounters, fuel problems, cracked windows, pressurization problems, fire warnings, smoke in cockpit, dodgy looking blokes muttering to themselves. No of which are related to the number of engines on the wings, but all of which I sure as hell donÕt want to be 5 1/2 hours from an escape route.

Hi VS045

But a four-engined a/c has to lose three times as many engines in the process to reach that stage.

Iknow, but the point I'm trying to make is that such an event is unprecedented since ETOPS came in, ISTBC, from mechanical failiure. As I said, can anyone name an occasion where a twin has lost both engines from mechanical failiure?

If we're talking about fuel problems or an onbaord fire, it doesn't matter if you've got 2 engines or 10, you need to land. And ironically because twins follow offset great circle tracks to destinations that stay close to land (180mins or 120mins?) A twin in this scenario is the safer aircraft as it's already closer to diversion[y]

I appreciate this really is an issue of cosmetics and passneger comfort, the gneral flying public are whipped into a frenzy by the media by every little aviation incident, that subconciously a lot of us are afraid of flying whether it's admitted or not. To see 4 engines, whilst looking out the gate window, puts the mind at ease a little more, regardless of the fact that 2 engines are far more economical and powerful when vs A340-300 (love that positive outlook about the views VS045;))

Watch out for the wind today

Cheers,

YS[y]

Yes the 330 and 340 have commonality. The flight deck is identical and the cabin is layed out the same.

Given the popularity of 330's at the moment it will be at least a year after announcement before they arrived in the fleet.

With regards to ETOPS for 5 and half hours- other than the pacific I can think of nowhere on regular air routes that is 5 and half hours from an emergency airport.I dont see carriers flying for 5 and half hours without diverting myself-

Iknow, but the point I'm trying to make is that such an event is unprecedented since ETOPS came in, ISTBC, from mechanical failiure. As I said, can anyone name an occasion where a twin has lost both engines from mechanical failiure?

If we're talking about fuel problems or an onbaord fire, it doesn't matter if you've got 2 engines or 10, you need to land. And ironically because twins follow offset great circle tracks to destinations that stay close to land (180mins or 120mins?) A twin in this scenario is the safer aircraft as it's already closer to diversion

I appreciate this really is an issue of cosmetics and passneger comfort, the gneral flying public are whipped into a frenzy by the media by every little aviation incident, that subconciously a lot of us are afraid of flying whether it's admitted or not. To see 4 engines, whilst looking out the gate window, puts the mind at ease a little more, regardless of the fact that 2 engines are far more economical and powerful when vs A340-300 (love that positive outlook about the views VS045)

Well constructed argument:D Do I abandon my signature?;)

Although at the risk of sounding a bit wimpy, I don't want to reach the point where an incident does occur and we'll think if only we hadn't extended ETOPS so much, we could have save 300 people's lives (however small the chances of this actually happening)

VS.

VS045

Do I abandon my signature?

I'd wait to see what Virgin do themselves:)

The big picture of strategy and future growth, seems cloudy. How are Virgin going to get anymore LHR slots to expand the network.

Did someone say "buy BMI" in the background cough cough cough[:0]

Then I think we'll see Virgin play their hand!

Cheers

YS[y]

ETOPS = Engine Turning Or Passengers Swimming

No comment - just for info...

On the 17th March 2003, a United Airlines' B777 carrying 255 passengers flew over the mid-Pacific Ocean against strong headwinds for 192 minutes under one engine power to land without incident at Hawaii. Boeing confirmed that it was the longest one engine diversion during ETOPS segment since the advent of transoceanic twin-engine flights 20 years ago by a TWA B767-200. The B777 departed Auckland bound for Los Angeles. The planned 180 minutes from the ETOPS alternates was exceeded as they encountered stronger headwinds during the diversion.