"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message hlink.net...
Neil Gerace wrote:
"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message
link.net...
Also, Boeing has shown
off the ability of a similar 737 BBJ to climb from sea level on one
engine (I think this was at MMA patrol weights), so an engine
failure need not be catastrophic even down low.

I thought all twin-engined airliners were required to be able to
climb out on one engine.

Probably true, come to think of it. This was just one of the things Boeing
showed off to P-3 pilots during its barnstorming campaign. I think they
needed to be shown this performance feature, even if it is standard on
twin-jets.

Yes FAR Par 25 certification does require the ability to lose an
engine, accelerate, and then LAND! That scenario is whole lot
different than losing an engine while down on the deck on a distant
station.
Its also true that the 737 Next Gen's were designed with ETOPS in
mind. However, that scenario presupposes engine loss in the flight
levels and then the possibility of unpressurized flight at ~FL100. I
might add that the few times the ETOPS scenario has been realized,
fuel consumption has been higher than planned (mainly due to the
unrealistic still air crteria that makes up part of the rule).
That is still a much different deal than losing an engine while
already down low. Operational procedures for this aircraft will have
to take into account the prevention of a "coffin corner" single engine
scenario where the aircraft wont make it home before it runs out of
gas.