Aviano789
Topic Author
Posts: 94
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2017 5:00 pm

Flying 2000 miles over open water in twins powered by CFM56-7

Sun Apr 29, 2018 2:45 pm

Just recently a Boeing 737-800 operator from Seattle (SEA) to Honolulu (HNL) with 165 people on board had to drift down to FL230 and continued to HNL for a safe landing about 2:45 hours after leaving FL350, due to an oil filter bypass indication for one of its CFM56 engines. It is a fact most twin isles operators have conducted 1000s of such flights over open water safely without a hitch. Taken into account the recent events with WN 1380 and the reported growing issues with that engine version, would the manufactures re-consider three or four engines airframe designs in the future to increases more safety margin for this type of operation? And would a three or four engine design end the need for ETOPS ops certification for twins?
 
Antarius
Posts: 1420
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2017 1:27 pm

Re: Flying 2000 miles over open water in twins powered by CFM56-7

Sun Apr 29, 2018 2:52 pm

No.

Cherry picking statistically insignificant incidents and extrapolating decisions based on that is a very bad idea.
2019: SIN HKG NRT DFW IAH HOU CLT LGA JFK SFO SJC EWR SNA EYW MIA BOG LAX ORD DTW OAK PVG BOS DCA IAD ATL LAS BIS CUN PHX OAK SYD MEL DEN BLR MAA DEL KTM YYZ MEX
 
User avatar
767333ER
Posts: 902
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:14 am

Re: Flying 2000 miles over open water in twins powered by CFM56-7

Sun Apr 29, 2018 3:00 pm

What you have to ask yourself is how long this type of engine has been in service and how much use in total such as hours have been put on it. Just because one operator has had some trouble for whatever reason doesn’t mean the engine is suddenly unsafe if everyone else’s is fine still.
Been on: 732 733 734 73G 738 752 763 A319 A320 A321 CRJ CR7 CRA/CR9 E145 E175 E190 F28 MD-82 MD-83 C172R C172S P2006T
 
nine4nine
Posts: 464
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2017 3:44 pm

Re: Flying 2000 miles over open water in twins powered by CFM56-7

Sun Apr 29, 2018 3:03 pm

767333ER wrote:
What you have to ask yourself is how long this type of engine has been in service and how much use in total such as hours have been put on it. Just because one operator has had some trouble for whatever reason doesn’t mean the engine is suddenly unsafe if everyone else’s is fine still.


No, but given range issues due to fuel I wouldn’t feel comfortable being down an engine and flying lower altitude with higher fuel burn or even the added drag. I’d imagine any issue on a mainland-Hawaii flight to the likes of the WN issue would have resulted in a major tragedy.

I will never book a Hawaii flight personally on an 320/321 or 737. Have heard stories about planes arriving on fumes after stronger than expected headwinds. Couple that with an engine issue. I think it’s a disaster in the making.
717 727 732 733 734 735 73G 738 739 742 748 752 753 762 763 772 773 DC9 MD80/88/90 DC10 319 320 321 332 333 CS100 CRJ200 Q400 E175 E190 ERJ145 EMB120
 
robsaw
Posts: 413
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2008 7:14 am

Re: Flying 2000 miles over open water in twins powered by CFM56-7

Sun Apr 29, 2018 3:04 pm

The recent engine events would logically lead to a re-examination of the engine design and maintenance - MAYBE, if there are actual any trends of verified statistical significance. The ETOPS concept is not even remotely in question by any aircraft maker.
 
smokeybandit
Posts: 1009
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 3:24 pm

Re: Flying 2000 miles over open water in twins powered by CFM56-7

Sun Apr 29, 2018 3:07 pm

Was it determined that there actually was a bypass?
 
CallmeJB
Posts: 70
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2017 9:19 pm

Re: Flying 2000 miles over open water in twins powered by CFM56-7

Sun Apr 29, 2018 3:09 pm

nine4nine wrote:
No, but given range issues due to fuel I wouldn’t feel comfortable being down an engine and flying lower altitude with higher fuel burn or even the added drag. I’d imagine any issue on a mainland-Hawaii flight to the likes of the WN issue would have resulted in a major tragedy.

Fuel for overwater flights is planned based on the scenario of losing an engine and a sudden depressurization at the most critical point, and continuing the flight on a single engine at 10000 feet with the added increased drag.

So, the exact WN issue could have happened at the worst time and there would have been sufficient fuel on board to make it to a safe landing.

Even then, those types of failures at the worst time are rare. As the poster below points out (Go Cardinals!), catastrophic engine failures usually occur early in the flight.
Last edited by CallmeJB on Sun Apr 29, 2018 3:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 13705
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

Re: Flying 2000 miles over open water in twins powered by CFM56-7

Sun Apr 29, 2018 3:11 pm

nine4nine wrote:
767333ER wrote:
What you have to ask yourself is how long this type of engine has been in service and how much use in total such as hours have been put on it. Just because one operator has had some trouble for whatever reason doesn’t mean the engine is suddenly unsafe if everyone else’s is fine still.


No, but given range issues due to fuel I wouldn’t feel comfortable being down an engine and flying lower altitude with higher fuel burn or even the added drag. I’d imagine any issue on a mainland-Hawaii flight to the likes of the WN issue would have resulted in a major tragedy.

I will never book a Hawaii flight personally on an 320/321 or 737. Have heard stories about planes arriving on fumes after stronger than expected headwinds. Couple that with an engine issue. I think it’s a disaster in the making.


How is any of what you cited different on a 757 or widebody twin from on a 737 or 320? While the larger aircraft have more range, carriers don’t fill up the tanks just for the sake of helping passengers sleep better at night. To the extent that uncontained engine failures are some sort of systemic problem (which is debatable at best), note that they generally do not occur hours into cruise.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
Aviano789
Topic Author
Posts: 94
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2017 5:00 pm

Re: Flying 2000 miles over open water in twins powered by CFM56-7

Sun Apr 29, 2018 3:18 pm

767333ER wrote:
What you have to ask yourself is how long this type of engine has been in service and how much use in total such as hours have been put on it. Just because one operator has had some trouble for whatever reason doesn’t mean the engine is suddenly unsafe if everyone else’s is fine still.


The History of the CFM56-2 on the DC-8-72 and CFM56-3 B373-Classic has proven to be an outstandingly reliable engine. It should be noted the variants as fitted to the -NGs and others have built on the quality of the earlier models. However, the larger CFM56 on the A340 is known to suffer from HP turbine bearing failures at around the 20,000hrs point. My concern is just that simple, what if both engines on a twin loss of oil pressure or power at mid ocean crossing?
 
User avatar
ikolkyo
Posts: 2542
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:43 pm

Re: Flying 2000 miles over open water in twins powered by CFM56-7

Sun Apr 29, 2018 3:22 pm

nine4nine wrote:
767333ER wrote:
What you have to ask yourself is how long this type of engine has been in service and how much use in total such as hours have been put on it. Just because one operator has had some trouble for whatever reason doesn’t mean the engine is suddenly unsafe if everyone else’s is fine still.


No, but given range issues due to fuel I wouldn’t feel comfortable being down an engine and flying lower altitude with higher fuel burn or even the added drag. I’d imagine any issue on a mainland-Hawaii flight to the likes of the WN issue would have resulted in a major tragedy.

I will never book a Hawaii flight personally on an 320/321 or 737. Have heard stories about planes arriving on fumes after stronger than expected headwinds. Couple that with an engine issue. I think it’s a disaster in the making.


Those are some made up stories since it would be illegal for a plane to land below reserves on a regular flight.
 
Antarius
Posts: 1420
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2017 1:27 pm

Re: Flying 2000 miles over open water in twins powered by CFM56-7

Sun Apr 29, 2018 3:22 pm

Aviano789 wrote:
767333ER wrote:
What you have to ask yourself is how long this type of engine has been in service and how much use in total such as hours have been put on it. Just because one operator has had some trouble for whatever reason doesn’t mean the engine is suddenly unsafe if everyone else’s is fine still.


The History of the CFM56-2 on the DC-8-72 and CFM56-3 B373-Classic has proven to be an outstandingly reliable engine. It should be noted the variants as fitted to the -NGs and others have built on the quality of the earlier models. However, the larger CFM56 on the A340 is known to suffer from HP turbine bearing failures at around the 20,000hrs point. My concern is just that simple, what if both engines on a twin loss of oil pressure or power at mid ocean crossing?


That's a statistically unlikely event. Like such low probability that it isnt worth worrying about. How many cases of dual engine failure do we know of that wasnt caused by birds or fuel starvation? BA 38 is the only one that comes to mind and that was a FOHE issue.

Technically both pilots could suffer cardiac arrest. But similarly, the odds are so remote that staffing a third pilot for this near zero probability doesnt make sense.
2019: SIN HKG NRT DFW IAH HOU CLT LGA JFK SFO SJC EWR SNA EYW MIA BOG LAX ORD DTW OAK PVG BOS DCA IAD ATL LAS BIS CUN PHX OAK SYD MEL DEN BLR MAA DEL KTM YYZ MEX
 
nine4nine
Posts: 464
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2017 3:44 pm

Re: Flying 2000 miles over open water in twins powered by CFM56-7

Sun Apr 29, 2018 3:24 pm

Cubsrule wrote:
nine4nine wrote:
767333ER wrote:
What you have to ask yourself is how long this type of engine has been in service and how much use in total such as hours have been put on it. Just because one operator has had some trouble for whatever reason doesn’t mean the engine is suddenly unsafe if everyone else’s is fine still.


No, but given range issues due to fuel I wouldn’t feel comfortable being down an engine and flying lower altitude with higher fuel burn or even the added drag. I’d imagine any issue on a mainland-Hawaii flight to the likes of the WN issue would have resulted in a major tragedy.

I will never book a Hawaii flight personally on an 320/321 or 737. Have heard stories about planes arriving on fumes after stronger than expected headwinds. Couple that with an engine issue. I think it’s a disaster in the making.


How is any of what you cited different on a 757 or widebody twin from on a 737 or 320? While the larger aircraft have more range, carriers don’t fill up the tanks just for the sake of helping passengers sleep better at night. To the extent that uncontained engine failures are some sort of systemic problem (which is debatable at best), note that they generally do not occur hours into cruise.



I’m not saying they aren’t safe. Obviously they went thru the ETOPS cert process and proving runs. I’m just stating a personal preference that I prefer not to fly one of those birds halfway across the Pacific especially in an emergency scenario. I think there are more variables with aircraft that are flying missions they weren’t designed for. That’s all.
717 727 732 733 734 735 73G 738 739 742 748 752 753 762 763 772 773 DC9 MD80/88/90 DC10 319 320 321 332 333 CS100 CRJ200 Q400 E175 E190 ERJ145 EMB120
 
LTCM
Posts: 75
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2017 5:35 am

Re: Flying 2000 miles over open water in twins powered by CFM56-7

Sun Apr 29, 2018 3:25 pm

If four engined airframes were the norm, we'd have some forum members refusing to fly on anything with less than six...
 
User avatar
hOMSaR
Posts: 2104
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 4:47 am

Re: Flying 2000 miles over open water in twins powered by CFM56-7

Sun Apr 29, 2018 3:27 pm

nine4nine wrote:
I will never book a Hawaii flight personally on an 320/321 or 737. Have heard stories about planes arriving on fumes after stronger than expected headwinds. Couple that with an engine issue. I think it’s a disaster in the making.


Be careful of “stories” you’ve heard. Without a link to an actual incident (and a plane arriving on fumes would be preceded by a fuel emergency and would almost certainly get the FAA’s attention), I’m going to call BS on this.

And even if something like that was true, what does that have to do with twins? You could fly a 747-8 from SFO-HNL and still “arrive on fumes” if you don’t put enough fuel in the tanks to handle the enroute conditions.
The plural of Airbus is Airbuses. Airbii is not a word.
There is no 787-800, nor 787-900 or 747-800. It's 787-8, 787-9, and 747-8.
A321neoLR is also unnecessary. It's simply A321LR.
Airplanes don't have isles, they have aisles.
 
CplKlinger
Posts: 320
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 3:05 pm

Re: Flying 2000 miles over open water in twins powered by CFM56-7

Sun Apr 29, 2018 3:31 pm

nine4nine wrote:
767333ER wrote:
I will never book a Hawaii flight personally on an 320/321 or 737. Have heard stories about planes arriving on fumes after stronger than expected headwinds. Couple that with an engine issue. I think it’s a disaster in the making.


What proof do you have that those flights arrived "on fumes"? I mean, hard, verifiable proof, like an FAA incident report. Yes, a flight might have arrived closer to fuel minimums than the pilots might have wanted, but no pilot worth their salt is going to continue a flight where they're going to place everyone at risk. Yes, I know that there have been "get-there-itis" stories in the past, but that's a very, very small percentage of the millions of flights that occur in a year.

Statistics have proven that operating twins over water, when the operators follow the established protocols and procedures is safe. Far safer than even when it was only 3 and 4 holers plying the skies over water. Look at United 173, Avianca 52. Both 4 holers, both crashed due to fuel starvation from other issues. Yes, the risk is there, but considering I'm more likely to die by far on the road on the way to the airport than in the sky, I'll take that risk. I would have no problem putting myself or my family on any twin over water. You do you, but when it's only twins, what are you going to do? Swim? Slow boat it?
 
Aviano789
Topic Author
Posts: 94
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2017 5:00 pm

Re: Flying 2000 miles over open water in twins powered by CFM56-7

Sun Apr 29, 2018 3:31 pm

nine4nine wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:
nine4nine wrote:

No, but given range issues due to fuel I wouldn’t feel comfortable being down an engine and flying lower altitude with higher fuel burn or even the added drag. I’d imagine any issue on a mainland-Hawaii flight to the likes of the WN issue would have resulted in a major tragedy.

I will never book a Hawaii flight personally on an 320/321 or 737. Have heard stories about planes arriving on fumes after stronger than expected headwinds. Couple that with an engine issue. I think it’s a disaster in the making.


How is any of what you cited different on a 757 or widebody twin from on a 737 or 320? While the larger aircraft have more range, carriers don’t fill up the tanks just for the sake of helping passengers sleep better at night. To the extent that uncontained engine failures are some sort of systemic problem (which is debatable at best), note that they generally do not occur hours into cruise.



I’m not saying they aren’t safe. Obviously they went thru the ETOPS cert process and proving runs. I’m just stating a personal preference that I prefer not to fly one of those birds halfway across the Pacific especially in an emergency scenario. I think there are more variables with aircraft that are flying missions they weren’t designed for. That’s all.

Plain and simple, I don't want to find myself and love ones or for that matter any one having to deal with the Engine Stops PAX Swim (ETOPS) Scenarios. Please note there are lot of hungry JAWS between West Coast and the Hawaiian Islands.
Last edited by Aviano789 on Sun Apr 29, 2018 3:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
MrBretz
Posts: 306
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2016 9:13 pm

Re: Flying 2000 miles over open water in twins powered by CFM56-7

Sun Apr 29, 2018 3:33 pm

I am pretty sure only twins fly between Hawaii and the mainland. Thus, you won’t be visiting.
 
thepinkmachine
Posts: 346
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 4:43 pm

Re: Flying 2000 miles over open water in twins powered by CFM56-7

Sun Apr 29, 2018 3:34 pm

No one forces you. Flying is optional
 
ltbewr
Posts: 14051
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

Re: Flying 2000 miles over open water in twins powered by CFM56-7

Sun Apr 29, 2018 3:38 pm

Of course, some of the complaining here of long over water flights on narrow-body a/c's, even if fully capable anyway, is for comfort.
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 13705
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

Re: Flying 2000 miles over open water in twins powered by CFM56-7

Sun Apr 29, 2018 3:42 pm

nine4nine wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:
nine4nine wrote:

No, but given range issues due to fuel I wouldn’t feel comfortable being down an engine and flying lower altitude with higher fuel burn or even the added drag. I’d imagine any issue on a mainland-Hawaii flight to the likes of the WN issue would have resulted in a major tragedy.

I will never book a Hawaii flight personally on an 320/321 or 737. Have heard stories about planes arriving on fumes after stronger than expected headwinds. Couple that with an engine issue. I think it’s a disaster in the making.


How is any of what you cited different on a 757 or widebody twin from on a 737 or 320? While the larger aircraft have more range, carriers don’t fill up the tanks just for the sake of helping passengers sleep better at night. To the extent that uncontained engine failures are some sort of systemic problem (which is debatable at best), note that they generally do not occur hours into cruise.



I’m not saying they aren’t safe. Obviously they went thru the ETOPS cert process and proving runs. I’m just stating a personal preference that I prefer not to fly one of those birds halfway across the Pacific especially in an emergency scenario. I think there are more variables with aircraft that are flying missions they weren’t designed for. That’s all.


What do you mean “missions they weren’t designed for?” The aircraft were designed to have sufficient range and in the case of newer narrow bodies, designed for ETOPS.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
IPFreely
Posts: 2290
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2006 8:26 am

Re: Flying 2000 miles over open water in twins powered by CFM56-7

Sun Apr 29, 2018 3:47 pm

nine4nine wrote:
I will never book a Hawaii flight personally on an 320/321 or 737. Have heard stories about planes arriving on fumes after stronger than expected headwinds.


Would love to know more about these stories.

I've heard stories about Nigerian princes wanting to put millions of dollars in my bank accountd. I'm guessing they're about equally as valid as 737's landing on "fumes".
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 2980
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Flying 2000 miles over open water in twins powered by CFM56-7

Sun Apr 29, 2018 3:51 pm

The engines have no idea they’re flying over water or in the dark.

GF
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3635
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Flying 2000 miles over open water in twins powered by CFM56-7

Sun Apr 29, 2018 4:04 pm

You picked one of the most reliable engines in the world to question ETOPS.

The PW1100G on the A320neo and Trent 1000 on the 787 are engines with design issues actually making the regulators question, limit or downgrade ETOPS approval.
 
jetblueguy22
Posts: 3151
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 12:26 am

Re: Flying 2000 miles over open water in twins powered by CFM56-7

Sun Apr 29, 2018 4:09 pm

Man, there are going to be a lot of people in this thread who won't be able to fly in a decade or so. 4 engines are going the way of the dodo, specifically because they have proven to be just as safe.
Look at sweatpants guy. This is a 90 million dollar aircraft, not a Tallahassee strip club
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 12072
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Flying 2000 miles over open water in twins powered by CFM56-7

Sun Apr 29, 2018 4:11 pm

Aviano789 wrote:
would the manufactures re-consider three or four engines airframe designs in the future to increases more safety margin for this type of operation?

Why are you assuming that 4 engines would "increase the safety margin"... they don't.
There's no mathematical evidence of that, despite what you're assuming to be a common sense conclusion.


nine4nine wrote:
I’m just stating a personal preference that I prefer not to fly one of those birds halfway across the Pacific especially in an emergency scenario. I think there are more variables with aircraft that are flying missions they weren’t designed for. That’s all.

You're attempting to justify a statistically irrational fear with a factually incorrect assertion that the aircraft "weren't designed for" a mission that they perform perfectly well... due to being designed to complete such a task.

No one's saying you can't have such a irrational fear, but please realize it for what it is, and try not to blame something that's not at fault for the existence of such an aversion.


Aviano789 wrote:
Plain and simple, I don't want to find myself and love ones or for that matter any one having to deal with the Engine Stops PAX Swim (ETOPS) Scenarios.

Then congratulations on knowing that in millions of flights over billions of miles throughout the previous 4 decades; the amount of passengers who've EVER faced such a fate remains a very round number: 0.

There has never been an ETOPS-caused fatality in the history of aviation. Ever.

So ignoring the fact that you're hundreds of times more likely to be killed on the drive to/from the airport.... just realize that while you're ridiculously fretting over ETOPS, you and your loved ones are statistically and historically many times more likely to be killed by:

  • a bomb
  • cargo door failure
  • sudden decompression due to the roof tearing off
  • CFIT
  • empennage failure
  • failure of the pressure bulkhead
  • a rogue pilot
  • a fatigued pilot or
  • Russian fighter jets

All of which have killed pax on TPACs.... than you are of an ETOPS issue, which never has.

Ponder that.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
7673mech
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2004 10:10 am

Re: Flying 2000 miles over open water in twins powered by CFM56-7

Sun Apr 29, 2018 4:23 pm

nine4nine wrote:
767333ER wrote:
What you have to ask yourself is how long this type of engine has been in service and how much use in total such as hours have been put on it. Just because one operator has had some trouble for whatever reason doesn’t mean the engine is suddenly unsafe if everyone else’s is fine still.


No, but given range issues due to fuel I wouldn’t feel comfortable being down an engine and flying lower altitude with higher fuel burn or even the added drag. I’d imagine any issue on a mainland-Hawaii flight to the likes of the WN issue would have resulted in a major tragedy.

I will never book a Hawaii flight personally on an 320/321 or 737. Have heard stories about planes arriving on fumes after stronger than expected headwinds. Couple that with an engine issue. I think it’s a disaster in the making.


You do realize that the widebody operators optimize fuel loads to predicted weather also?
They don't fill the tanks - and at times encounter stronger then expected winds and arrive with less then optimum fuel yet legal fuel loads?
 
Sooner787
Posts: 2425
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 1:44 am

Re: Flying 2000 miles over open water in twins powered by CFM56-7

Sun Apr 29, 2018 4:37 pm

What is the ETOPS number required for US west coast- Hawaii flight? 180 240?
 
BlatantEcho
Posts: 2074
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2000 10:11 am

Re: Flying 2000 miles over open water in twins powered by CFM56-7

Sun Apr 29, 2018 4:38 pm

“Don't try and teach a pig to sing.
It's a waste of your time, and it annoys the pig.“


The best response to a thread like this, is no response.

There is no point trying to convince a flat-earther that the world is round.

Let’s move on, and be happy the OP is not making meaningful decisions in the interest of public safety!!
 
barney captain
Posts: 2165
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2001 5:47 pm

Re: Flying 2000 miles over open water in twins powered by CFM56-7

Sun Apr 29, 2018 5:05 pm

Sooner787 wrote:
What is the ETOPS number required for US west coast- Hawaii flight? 180 240?


180 is what is required.
Southeast Of Disorder
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 9247
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: Flying 2000 miles over open water in twins powered by CFM56-7

Sun Apr 29, 2018 5:05 pm

Aviano789 wrote:
nine4nine wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:

How is any of what you cited different on a 757 or widebody twin from on a 737 or 320? While the larger aircraft have more range, carriers don’t fill up the tanks just for the sake of helping passengers sleep better at night. To the extent that uncontained engine failures are some sort of systemic problem (which is debatable at best), note that they generally do not occur hours into cruise.



I’m not saying they aren’t safe. Obviously they went thru the ETOPS cert process and proving runs. I’m just stating a personal preference that I prefer not to fly one of those birds halfway across the Pacific especially in an emergency scenario. I think there are more variables with aircraft that are flying missions they weren’t designed for. That’s all.

Plain and simple, I don't want to find myself and love ones or for that matter any one having to deal with the Engine Stops PAX Swim (ETOPS) Scenarios. Please note there are lot of hungry JAWS between West Coast and the Hawaiian Islands.


Interesting choice of username. I suppose it doesn't reflect the 787-9, an aircraft that flies some of the longest ETOPs routes in the world?
I have a three post per topic limit. You're welcome to have the last word.
 
Aviano789
Topic Author
Posts: 94
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2017 5:00 pm

Re: Flying 2000 miles over open water in twins powered by CFM56-7

Sun Apr 29, 2018 5:14 pm

There has never been an ETOPS-caused fatality in the history of aviation. Ever.

SAll of which have killed pax on TPACs.... than you are of an ETOPS issue, which never has.

Ponder that.[/quote]
A few Sundays ago CBS 60 Minutes reported on a low cost air carrier know in the industry for its maintenance deficiencies. The reporting was supported by the FAA Obscure Mechanical Interruption Summary. The report highlighted more than 100 serious in flight mechanical incident that carrier had from January 2016 to October 2017.
My question to you: Knowing the foregoing information about this airline, would you feel comfortable buying a ticket for your self and love ones to fly over 2000 miles of open water on any of their twins?
[i]By the way although ETOPS did not exist at time Flying Tiger Flight 923, which occurred in the dark of night during a raging storm in the cold North Atlantic Ocean. Seventy six persons were aboard. Twenty eight passengers and crew (including a mother and her two children) perished, while an unbelievable 48 survived the crash and three-day storm.
[/i]
 
SFOtoORD
Posts: 1047
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:26 am

Re: Flying 2000 miles over open water in twins powered by CFM56-7

Sun Apr 29, 2018 5:28 pm

Aviano789 wrote:
There has never been an ETOPS-caused fatality in the history of aviation. Ever.

SAll of which have killed pax on TPACs.... than you are of an ETOPS issue, which never has.

Ponder that.
A few Sundays ago CBS 60 Minutes reported on a low cost air carrier know in the industry for its maintenance deficiencies. The reporting was supported by the FAA Obscure Mechanical Interruption Summary. The report highlighted more than 100 serious in flight mechanical incident that carrier had from January 2016 to October 2017.
My question to you: Knowing the foregoing information about this airline, would you feel comfortable buying a ticket for your self and love ones to fly over 2000 miles of open water on any of their twins?
[i]By the way although ETOPS did not exist at time Flying Tiger Flight 923, which occurred in the dark of night during a raging storm in the cold North Atlantic Ocean. Seventy six persons were aboard. Twenty eight passengers and crew (including a mother and her two children) perished, while an unbelievable 48 survived the crash and three-day storm.


Now you’re just bringing up random points that aren’t at all related to your original question. You might as well start bringing up train incidents to support your point or talking about things you saw out the window.

Mods should close this thread.
 
Aviano789
Topic Author
Posts: 94
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2017 5:00 pm

Re: Flying 2000 miles over open water in twins powered by CFM56-7

Sun Apr 29, 2018 5:35 pm

[/i][/quote]

Now you’re just bringing up random points that aren’t at all related to your original question. You might as well start bringing up train incidents to support your point or talking about things you saw out the window.

Mods should close this thread.[/quote]
I don't see you asking the Mods to close the thread (Safety margins on CFM56-5B (A320) vs CFM56-7B (737NG) similar to this one. Should I assume you support impeding free speech?
 
george77300
Posts: 1085
Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 8:33 pm

Re: Flying 2000 miles over open water in twins powered by CFM56-7

Sun Apr 29, 2018 5:39 pm

nine4nine wrote:
I will never book a Hawaii flight personally on an 320/321 or 737. Have heard stories about planes arriving on fumes after stronger than expected headwinds. Couple that with an engine issue. I think it’s a disaster in the making.


How do you plan on getting to Hawaii then. I assume 757/777 has the same twin issue for you. There are NO 3 or 4 engine planes flying to Hawaii.
Also planes arriving on fumes is most likely false as they always take reserves for that very reason.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 17279
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Flying 2000 miles over open water in twins powered by CFM56-7

Sun Apr 29, 2018 5:47 pm

Engine safety has moved forward to the point that ETOPs aircraft might be safer than a quad. I say quad as tri-jets are so rare in passenger duty to not be worthy of discussion anymore. :(

MrBretz wrote:
I am pretty sure only twins fly between Hawaii and the mainland. Thus, you won’t be visiting.

Hmmm... I cannot even think of Asian airlines flying quads to Hawaii today. Is there a 744 still making the flight? Or is Hawaii 100% twins today?

thepinkmachine wrote:
No one forces you. Flying is optional

Takeoffs are optional, landings are mandatory. ;)

ltbewr wrote:
Of course, some of the complaining here of long over water flights on narrow-body a/c's, even if fully capable anyway, is for comfort.

I personally look forward to the option from my favorite airport, LGB. :) Otherwise, I have to deal with the delays and noise of LAX (my daughters' have incredible hearing and that airport's noise makes the experience very poor for them).

My work schedule can be... rigid. So if there isn't a convenient flight, I lose a day. So frequency is required for me.

Lightsaber
You know nothing John Snow.
 
IPFreely
Posts: 2290
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2006 8:26 am

Re: Flying 2000 miles over open water in twins powered by CFM56-7

Sun Apr 29, 2018 5:52 pm

george77300 wrote:
How do you plan on getting to Hawaii then. I assume 757/777 has the same twin issue for you.


He most likely believes 757/777 twins are not twins like 737's/320's are, or are somehow safer twins. It makes as much sense as thinking 737's/320's are "landing on fumes" but people can believe whatever they want. It falls in the category of superstition, not science.
 
superbizzy73
Posts: 57
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 5:43 am

Re: Flying 2000 miles over open water in twins powered by CFM56-7

Sun Apr 29, 2018 5:56 pm

Seriously, if you’re that concerned for the safety of you and your family, two words...

Don’t fly.
 
User avatar
JackMeahoff
Posts: 72
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 2:12 am

Re: Flying 2000 miles over open water in twins powered by CFM56-7

Sun Apr 29, 2018 6:41 pm

jetblueguy22 wrote:
Man, there are going to be a lot of people in this thread who won't be able to fly in a decade or so. 4 engines are going the way of the dodo, specifically because they have proven to be just as safe.


There was a time when no lifeboats were needed because "statistics" proved that a certain ship was unsinkable.

LAX772LR wrote:

There has never been an ETOPS-caused fatality in the history of aviation. Ever.



Sure, but there have been a handful of very close calls.
 
User avatar
JackMeahoff
Posts: 72
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 2:12 am

Re: Flying 2000 miles over open water in twins powered by CFM56-7

Sun Apr 29, 2018 6:55 pm

IPFreely wrote:
george77300 wrote:
How do you plan on getting to Hawaii then. I assume 757/777 has the same twin issue for you.


He most likely believes 757/777 twins are not twins like 737's/320's are, or are somehow safer twins. It makes as much sense as thinking 737's/320's are "landing on fumes" but people can believe whatever they want. It falls in the category of superstition, not science.


I like the ocean liner analogy. Cruise ships don't cross oceans, ocean liners do. More heavily built, higher bow, fewer windows near the water line, etc. The 737 was designed to be a regional jet, not a long range transoceanic jet.

Funny how so many commentators on here seem to be praising the use of narrowbody regional jets to cross oceans. As if this is some milestone to be celebrated.

In reality 737s and A320s crossing oceans is a sad indicator of the sorry state of the aviation industry. Gone are the days of faster, higher, bigger, better.
 
Aptivaboy
Posts: 749
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2016 3:32 pm

Re: Flying 2000 miles over open water in twins powered by CFM56-7

Sun Apr 29, 2018 7:02 pm

I will never book a Hawaii flight personally on an 320/321 or 737. Have heard stories about planes arriving on fumes after stronger than expected headwinds. Couple that with an engine issue. I think it’s a disaster in the making.


I've flown to Hawaii on multiple 737s, a 757, and a 767. I've flown back on A330s twice, so all twins. The only aircraft I've flown to and from Hawaii that wasn't a twin was one Western Airlines 720 or 707 (I was a kid and can't recall which - anyone have an idea which one would have been used for charters?) and one Delta L-1011. You know what? I'm still here. ETOPs rated twins are fantastically reliable. Beyond that, if a flight was experiencing stronger than anticipated headwinds and for some reason the crew felt that they couldn't reach the islands, then they'd simply turn back for the mainland upon reaching that decision gate. Remember, the pilots can query their maintenance and dispatch departments while in the air for the latest weather news and make decisions based upon that. No sane cockpit crew is going to knowingly fly past the point of no return. Very respectfully, kind sir, I think you're being a bit over the top by saying that you'll never fly an A320 or 737 to the islands.

Whenever I feel bored at work and need to just zone out, I turn on Flightradar and watch the long lines of planes heading to paradise, Maui specifically. These days, virtually all of them are twins, whether narrowbodies from the West Coast or widebodies from as far away as Asia and Australia. They all seem to get to paradise and then return whence they came, sans serious issues.

https://www.flightradar24.com/20.97,-155.79/10
 
BravoOne
Posts: 3316
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:27 pm

Re: Flying 2000 miles over open water in twins powered by CFM56-7

Sun Apr 29, 2018 7:03 pm

hOMSaR wrote:
nine4nine wrote:
I will never book a Hawaii flight personally on an 320/321 or 737. Have heard stories about planes arriving on fumes after stronger than expected headwinds. Couple that with an engine issue. I think it’s a disaster in the making.


Be careful of “stories” you’ve heard. Without a link to an actual incident (and a plane arriving on fumes would be preceded by a fuel emergency and would almost certainly get the FAA’s attention), I’m going to call BS on this.

And even if something like that was true, what does that have to do with twins? You could fly a 747-8 from SFO-HNL and still “arrive on fumes” if you don’t put enough fuel in the tanks to handle the enroute conditions.


Your point is well taken regarding "stories" but none the less a number of 737-800's have made the PDX fuel stop enroute to SEA. It a contingency or redispatch operation probably 98% of the time. Another poster used the critical scenario plan as he norm, but in fact the loss of pressurization and two engines still running at 10,000' can be more critical than having lost one and a decompression, at 10,000. The 737NG and -8MAX hold around 46,000 lbs of fuel so there not a lot of room left over for XTRA fuel.
 
dynamo12
Posts: 63
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 6:07 am

Re: Flying 2000 miles over open water in twins powered by CFM56-7

Sun Apr 29, 2018 7:07 pm

JackMeahoff wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:

There has never been an ETOPS-caused fatality in the history of aviation. Ever.



Sure, but there have been a handful of very close calls.


I feel like folks this worried about dying in a plane crash never look at motorcycle, auto, heart attack, disease, crime, some politician starting a war, gun and other fatality rates and injuries. PLEASE consider that many other things are much MUCH more likely to kill you. If folks excercised for the 30 minutes each day they are worrying about ETOPS fatalities that alone would be a huge benefit - basic heart disease is a much bigger killer.

And yes, I believe an ETOPS plane can (and will) crash someday. So it will be more than a close call. But is it the thing of most concern? There are something like 2 million deaths per year in the US alone.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3635
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Flying 2000 miles over open water in twins powered by CFM56-7

Sun Apr 29, 2018 7:08 pm

JackMeahoff wrote:
IPFreely wrote:
george77300 wrote:
How do you plan on getting to Hawaii then. I assume 757/777 has the same twin issue for you.


He most likely believes 757/777 twins are not twins like 737's/320's are, or are somehow safer twins. It makes as much sense as thinking 737's/320's are "landing on fumes" but people can believe whatever they want. It falls in the category of superstition, not science.


I like the ocean liner analogy. Cruise ships don't cross oceans, ocean liners do. More heavily built, higher bow, fewer windows near the water line, etc. The 737 was designed to be a regional jet, not a long range transoceanic jet.

Funny how so many commentators on here seem to be praising the use of narrowbody regional jets to cross oceans. As if this is some milestone to be celebrated.

In reality 737s and A320s crossing oceans is a sad indicator of the sorry state of the aviation industry. Gone are the days of faster, higher, bigger, better.
 
User avatar
JackMeahoff
Posts: 72
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 2:12 am

Re: Flying 2000 miles over open water in twins powered by CFM56-7

Sun Apr 29, 2018 7:09 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
Why are you assuming that 4 engines would "increase the safety margin"... they don't.
There's no mathematical evidence of that, despite what you're assuming to be a common sense conclusion.


So you are saying more redundancy doesn't increase the safety margin?

What about the number of hydraulic systems on an airliner? The more, the better, right? Why is it any different with the number of engines?
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3635
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Flying 2000 miles over open water in twins powered by CFM56-7

Sun Apr 29, 2018 7:13 pm

JackMeahoff wrote:
IPFreely wrote:
george77300 wrote:
How do you plan on getting to Hawaii then. I assume 757/777 has the same twin issue for you.


He most likely believes 757/777 twins are not twins like 737's/320's are, or are somehow safer twins. It makes as much sense as thinking 737's/320's are "landing on fumes" but people can believe whatever they want. It falls in the category of superstition, not science.


I like the ocean liner analogy. Cruise ships don't cross oceans, ocean liners do. More heavily built, higher bow, fewer windows near the water line, etc. The 737 was designed to be a regional jet, not a long range transoceanic jet.

Funny how so many commentators on here seem to be praising the use of narrowbody regional jets to cross oceans. As if this is some milestone to be celebrated.

In reality 737s and A320s crossing oceans is a sad indicator of the sorry state of the aviation industry. Gone are the days of faster, higher, bigger, better.


From reading your comments, i doubt you will ever change your mind, but i sugfest reading AC25.1309 which discusses the regulations around statistics and the probability of failure. Airplanes are desogned with fault trees and failure mode and effect analysis. The probability of a catastrophic failure must be less than 1 in a billion flight hours. The size of the plane does not matter.
 
32andBelow
Posts: 3928
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 2:54 am

Re: Flying 2000 miles over open water in twins powered by CFM56-7

Sun Apr 29, 2018 7:17 pm

JackMeahoff wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
Why are you assuming that 4 engines would "increase the safety margin"... they don't.
There's no mathematical evidence of that, despite what you're assuming to be a common sense conclusion.


So you are saying more redundancy doesn't increase the safety margin?

What about the number of hydraulic systems on an airliner? The more, the better, right? Why is it any different with the number of engines?

It’s also more engines that could explode and destroy critical system a la UAL231
 
george77300
Posts: 1085
Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 8:33 pm

Re: Flying 2000 miles over open water in twins powered by CFM56-7

Sun Apr 29, 2018 7:19 pm

IPFreely wrote:
george77300 wrote:
How do you plan on getting to Hawaii then. I assume 757/777 has the same twin issue for you.


He most likely believes 757/777 twins are not twins like 737's/320's are, or are somehow safer twins. It makes as much sense as thinking 737's/320's are "landing on fumes" but people can believe whatever they want. It falls in the category of superstition, not science.


Couldn't have put it better myself....

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
 
User avatar
JackMeahoff
Posts: 72
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 2:12 am

Re: Flying 2000 miles over open water in twins powered by CFM56-7

Sun Apr 29, 2018 7:21 pm

Aptivaboy wrote:
Very respectfully, kind sir, I think you're being a bit over the top by saying that you'll never fly an A320 or 737 to the islands.


I will always select a widebody over a narrowbody if the price is equal. Who doesn't like high ceilings and open space?! If you don't operate this way, you are just playing into the hands of the airline bean counters who would fly the 737 to China if they could find a way.
Last edited by JackMeahoff on Sun Apr 29, 2018 7:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
joelliot
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 2:47 am

Re: Flying 2000 miles over open water in twins powered by CFM56-7

Sun Apr 29, 2018 7:24 pm

JackMeahoff wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
Why are you assuming that 4 engines would "increase the safety margin"... they don't.
There's no mathematical evidence of that, despite what you're assuming to be a common sense conclusion.


So you are saying more redundancy doesn't increase the safety margin?

What about the number of hydraulic systems on an airliner? The more, the better, right? Why is it any different with the number of engines?


...so I don't know the answer to these, but I do question the following? Maybe someone can enlighten.

If you lose two out of four engines on a plane can it continue flying? If yes, and they are on the same side, can you fly anywhere other then a circle? If I’m plugging away on two engines at a now low altitude, do my normal fuel reserves get me to the end of the ETOPs range? I also am not convinced that having another engine really helps, “increase the safety margin,” thoug admit ignorance and would be happily corrected. Maybe someday we will have twenty little electric motors and losing a couple won’t be a bit deal, but losing half your engines seems like a problem unless that was a design goal such as with twins.
 
rbavfan
Posts: 3053
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: Flying 2000 miles over open water in twins powered by CFM56-7

Sun Apr 29, 2018 7:37 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
Aviano789 wrote:
would the manufactures re-consider three or four engines airframe designs in the future to increases more safety margin for this type of operation?

Why are you assuming that 4 engines would "increase the safety margin"... they don't.
There's no mathematical evidence of that, despite what you're assuming to be a common sense conclusion.


nine4nine wrote:
I’m just stating a personal preference that I prefer not to fly one of those birds halfway across the Pacific especially in an emergency scenario. I think there are more variables with aircraft that are flying missions they weren’t designed for. That’s all.

You're attempting to justify a statistically irrational fear with a factually incorrect assertion that the aircraft "weren't designed for" a mission that they perform perfectly well... due to being designed to complete such a task.

No one's saying you can't have such a irrational fear, but please realize it for what it is, and try not to blame something that's not at fault for the existence of such an aversion.


Aviano789 wrote:
Plain and simple, I don't want to find myself and love ones or for that matter any one having to deal with the Engine Stops PAX Swim (ETOPS) Scenarios.

Then congratulations on knowing that in millions of flights over billions of miles throughout the previous 4 decades; the amount of passengers who've EVER faced such a fate remains a very round number: 0.

There has never been an ETOPS-caused fatality in the history of aviation. Ever.

So ignoring the fact that you're hundreds of times more likely to be killed on the drive to/from the airport.... just realize that while you're ridiculously fretting over ETOPS, you and your loved ones are statistically and historically many times more likely to be killed by:

  • a bomb
  • cargo door failure
  • sudden decompression due to the roof tearing off
  • CFIT
  • empennage failure
  • failure of the pressure bulkhead
  • a rogue pilot
  • a fatigued pilot or
  • Russian fighter jets

All of which have killed pax on TPACs.... than you are of an ETOPS issue, which never has.

Ponder that.



No passenger died on the Aloha roof tearing off flight. They lost a FA, not a passenger.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos