Thanks for the thoughtful replies, all. I still don't buy the idea that this change was made with public safety as the top priority. I do get that it might be a reasonable trade off of safety/profits. I really do hope…
Except this ignores that the motivation was not increased safety but money. It does seem true that twin-engine planes can be quite safe but if Boeing/Airbus were motivated to create the safest possible plane, it would…
Doesn't the fact that the twin-engine planes have to submit to more stringent ETOPS requirements mean the FAA believes they're less reliable than four engine planes?
Can you point to the statistics? I'm sure modern twin-engine planes are more reliable than very old four engine planes but what about modern vs modern?
It just seems like a very bad idea that twin-engine planes can fly so far from an air strip. If the #1 engine had failed as well it would have been game over. There's no possibility of gliding a 787 for 2+ hours and…
Thanks for the thoughtful replies, all. I still don't buy the idea that this change was made with public safety as the top priority. I do get that it might be a reasonable trade off of safety/profits. I really do hope…
Except this ignores that the motivation was not increased safety but money. It does seem true that twin-engine planes can be quite safe but if Boeing/Airbus were motivated to create the safest possible plane, it would…
Doesn't the fact that the twin-engine planes have to submit to more stringent ETOPS requirements mean the FAA believes they're less reliable than four engine planes?
Can you point to the statistics? I'm sure modern twin-engine planes are more reliable than very old four engine planes but what about modern vs modern?
It just seems like a very bad idea that twin-engine planes can fly so far from an air strip. If the #1 engine had failed as well it would have been game over. There's no possibility of gliding a 787 for 2+ hours and…