![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]() True, but the probability of losing all of the engines at the same time is greater with only two engines as opposed to four. Matt Not necessarily... There has never been a historical case of a twin engine jetliner losing both engines at once due to unrelated failures. All twin engine failures have been due to a common cause; fuel starvation being the prime reason. Here are some examples of related engine failures: A four engine 747 had all four engines flame out at the same time when it flew into the ash cloud of Mt. Redoubt in Alaska, and only managed to restart three of them after losing over 10,000 feet of altitude. A four engine Airbus A340 made a dead-stick landing at Lajes in the Azores after running of fuel due to a combination fuel leak and fuel system management problem. A 767 (twin) made an emergency landing in Canada on a drag strip after losing both engines due to a miscalculation during fueling. The probability of an ETOPS plane losing both engines in a single flight due to unrelated failures is extremely remote. That doesn't mean it can never happen, but it is less likely than winning the lottery. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|