(Ted Azito) wrote in message . com...

ETOPS isn't an exotic or inherently risky concept. In fact, I believe
that the additional rigors of ETOPS certification actually make ETOPS
planes safer. If you lose two engines in a 747, you are going
swimming just the same as if you lose two engines in a 777. There was
a case of fuel-mismanagement on a 747 operated by [not to be name U.S.
carrier] on its way to Narita that ran two engines dry, and barely was
able to stretch its glide to reach the airport with the two remaining
engines. If they hadn't been as close to their destination as they
were, they would have ditched in the Pacific.

First, a 747 at low fuel weight should be able to stay airborne
indefinitely (until the fuel runs out) on two engines. Also the 747
fuel system has transfer and crossfeed-they should have had time to
transfer over a lot of fuel, enough to relight the outboard at least.

Not if they are both lost on the same side... thrust asymmetry is
much worse on a 747 in this situation due to the positioning of the
outboard engine. The 747 that ran its two engines dry ran them both
dry on the same side.


ETOPS losing one engine is very much akin to a four engine jet
losoing two on the same side. Some of what ETOPS mandated should have
been made industry standard anyway-such as no one mechanic working on
all the engines before a revenue flight.

Not exactly, the ETOPS engines are mounted fairly close to the
fuselage on twins to minimize the asymmetric thrust. Four engine jets
have their engines mounted farther out.