Flying Over Water

[Blaine]

I might be about to lose a bet.....I thought Airlines had to have at least 3 engines to fly over the ocean?

[Pitchy]

Don`t know.

[pdentrem]

I flew back from Europe in a 757 long range version in 1991. I believe the 787 has been designed more for the Asia market as well.

[JReed]

Nope 2 will do. The DC9 is a twin engine plane the Marine Corps has 2 and they fly accross the pond all the time.

[Blaine]

I owe a cheeseburger to my buddy

[jnyork]

I owe a cheeseburger to my buddy

Next time ask the experts here BEFORE you bet.

BTW, Lindberg did it on ONE engine. Way back when.

[Blaine]

I owe a cheeseburger to my buddy

Next time ask the experts here BEFORE you bet.

BTW, Lindberg did it on ONE engine. Way back when.

[stretch]

I think at one time there was a requirement for commercial passenger aircraft
to have 3 or 4 engines (I seem to rmember 4!), but it was rescinded several
decades ago when twin-engined aircraft were shown to have enough power
to keep them aloft over long distances. The DC-3 was, I believe, the first
commercial airliner to be able to maintain altitude or even climb on one engine.

(My memory could be faulty, too! )

-Stretch

[gak]

I've never bought into the
two-engine trend (going on 30 years + so I guess should get over it ). Eight or so years ago I flew from Phoenix to Maui on a then-newly modified long range 737 outfitted to make that stretch non-stop. Speaking of stretch, I was skeptical that such.mods (actually advertised in terminal posters) were a real "stretch" for that particular little airframe...that such an engineering-marketing decision to begin with was suspect. Anyway, terrible flight due to 5 out of 6 hours very bad chop they couldn't get out of (all other westbound layers full). Not the plane's fault (the weather) but it's the last time on a short wheelbase job like that for such a flight. Judging by the pilot's volume and tone ("Flight attendants, sit down NOW!") I truly believe they were concerned the chop was biting seriously into their range reserve. Flying at night made it worse psychologically! A bigger plane doesn't speak to the two engine phenomenon, as most are that now. The return trip from Hawaii was on a much larger--but still two-engined--Airbus. Still lots of chop but much better ride. Made me feel less concerned about fuel reserves, but didn't help my concern about just two engines! That configuration may be more efficient and cost effective, but over "long water" I still want at least three engines (good ol 727 days), or better yet four! I think Airbus has the only newer frame(s) with four.

Edit - a separate flight back (but same 2-engine Airbus model) carrying other family members had to return to Hawaii *just shy* of the point-of-no-return due to an engine problem. I don't know if three or four engines would have made a difference in that decision--perhaps not--but had they been over that critical line it sure would've made for better peace of mind (and probably would have also for the turn back anyway).

[Blaine]

I think at one time there was a requirement for commercial passenger aircraft
to have 3 or 4 engines (I seem to rmember 4!), but it was rescinded several
decades ago when twin-engined aircraft were shown to have enough power
to keep them aloft over long distances. The DC-3 was, I believe, the first
commercial airliner to be able to maintain altitude or even climb on one engine.

(My memory could be faulty, too! )

-Stretch

I don't mind if you just wing it.

[stretch]

I don't mind if you just wing it.

Here we go, boys.....

-Stretch

[GonnePhishin]

A 747 airliner was flying over the ocean and all of a sudden the pilot comes over the intercom and says: "I'm sorry ladies and gentlemen but if you look out to your left side you'll see that we've just lost power to the inboard engine, but don't worry we still have three more engines."

A little while later the pilot comes on the intercom and says: "I'm sorry ladies and gentlemen but if your look over to your right side you'll see that we've just lost power to the outboard engine, but don't worry we still have two more engines."

About a half hour later the pilot once more comes on and says: "I'm really sorry ladies and gentlemen but I have to inform you that if you look over to your right side again you'll notice that we've lost power to the inboard engine". "AND, IF YOU LOOK REAL CLOSE DOWN PAST THE INBOARD ENGINE YOU WILL SEE A YELLOW LIFE RAFT BOBBING UP AND DOWN IN THE WATER WITH SOME PEOPLE ON IT. BUT DON'T WORRY. THAT'S JUST YOUR PILOT AND CREW AND THIS IS A RECORDING."

[gak]

[Booger Bill]

Gad! Great minds think alike! I just posted uncle bucks joke and then seen his! I just deleted it.

[El Chivo]

no problem, John Denver used to do it all the time.

[6pt-sika]

I was sitting in the window seat on the left side of an Airbus in January 2011 on a trans arctic flight from JFK to Tokyo . We were 5 hours outta JFK when the pilot comes on the intercom and says we have hydraulic problems and are heading back to Detroit . And then he says we'll be dumping fuel now .

I got to watch that out the window and under no means did I find it comforting

[COSteve]

What you are referring to is if an airplane is ETOPS certified. ETOPS is an acronym for extended operations as re-defined by the US Federal Aviation Administration in 2007. This rule allows twin-engined airliners to fly long-distance routes that were previously off-limits to twin-engined aircraft. ETOPS operation has no direct correlation to water or distance over water. It refers to single-engine flight times between diversion airfields, regardless as to whether such fields are separated by water or land.

[Steelbanger]

Blaine,

How can you lose on a bet for a cheeseburger? Either way you'll be getting one for yourself too. I happen to think that that was a very smart bet.

[Blaine]

Blaine,

How can you lose on a bet for a cheeseburger? Either way you'll be getting one for yourself too. I happen to think that that was a very smart bet.

True Dat... A big half pounder, swiss cheese, juicy, pink in the center, two big onion rings on top and fries....

[pdawg.shooter]

FAA requires a twin engine aircraft to have enough power on one engine to fly the plane to the site of the crash.

[Grizz]

I owe a cheeseburger to my buddy

Not necessarily. There is a different category for small capacity aircraft. I've flown over water in SE Alaska in single engine aircraft, some on wheels, some on floats. These are scheduled airlines, they have mail contracts just like any other airline. They just kill smaller quantities of folks when they fly into mountains.

[JohndeFresno]

FAA requires a twin engine aircraft to have enough power on one engine to fly the plane to the site of the crash.

That's twice funny!

[jeepnik]

FAA requires a twin engine aircraft to have enough power on one engine to fly the plane to the site of the crash.

Sorta like the airliner that kept loosing engines and the pilot reassured folks by telling them it would just take longer to get there. Imagine how long it would take to get to the crash site if they lost all the engines. Why, they'd still be up there today.

[olyinaz]

Nope 2 will do. The DC9 is a twin engine plane the Marine Corps has 2 and they fly accross the pond all the time.

That is true, but military rules do not apply to civil operations.

Two engines will do just fine for airline flights, but many added rules come into play to include maintenance that is required above and beyond what would be needed for overland flights. Indeed, both the pilots and the mechanics who maintain the birds must be ETOPS certified as well as the airline itself.

Oly

[claybob86]

ETOPS certification requires that the aircraft/airline maintains an in-flight engine shutdown rate for a particular airframe-engine combination that is so low that you can pretty much forget about such a plane losing an engine on any given flight. Not only that, but twin engine aircraft are required to be able to continue a takeoff with one engine out, so they are quite capable of continuing a flight at altitude with one engine, if necessary.

[gak]

ETOPS certification requires that the aircraft/airline maintains an in-flight engine shutdown rate for a particular airframe-engine combination that is so low that you can pretty much forget about such a plane losing an engine on any given flight. Not only that, but twin engine aircraft are required to be able to continue a takeoff with one engine out, so they are quite capable of continuing a flight at altitude with one engine, if necessary.

This is good to know that there's such a confidence level these days, but the comfort factor over long water would sure go up (with me) with a few spares! I've only done two such legs (to-from Hawaii) with two engines only--with concern (regarding other factors noted above), following years earlier of four-engine'd legs...to from SF-Honolulu-Tokyo on an Air Force DC-6 going, Pan Am 707 coming, and later 747 to-from Hawaii..Best recent year (decades) experience - the 747, what a smooth incident free flight(s)! Ditto the 707 earlier.

[olyinaz]

Not only that, but twin engine aircraft are required to be able to continue a takeoff with one engine out, so they are quite capable of continuing a flight at altitude with one engine, if necessary.

The ability to fly on one engine is something that has been ensured since the days of the Boeing 247 and DC-3. The key element to consider with over water operations is distance to a suitable landing sight. You must stay within a time radius of known suitable diversion alternates and have the available fuel to reach it with contingencies. Believe it or not, fuel burn on one engine at low altitude is actually greater over a given distance than it is with two engines cruising at altitude. As such, we carry many thousands of pounds of extra fuel on long over water flights, and at key points in the flight we are required to evaluate our available fuel and known meteorological conditions to ensure that we can safely continue the flight. A mandatory re-route or even a diversion for a fuel stop short of destination is a relatively common occurrence. The only route on Earth where a fuel stop short of destination is not an option is mainland U.S. to Hawaii - the longest open over water route we fly. There are no diversions short of simply returning back to departure, and that is what we plan for.

All of these flights are planned with joint responsibility between the Captain and crew and the federally certified Dispatcher back at headquarters. The Dispatcher delivers a planned route and briefing to the Captain and crew, and the crew takes about an hour to ensure that it is a viable plan, makes their suggested changes, and then the Captain and Dispatcher sign off on it jointly. During the flight the dispatcher monitors global meteorological and aviation issues (airport or runway closures at diversion alternates etc.) while the crew monitors the flight and aircraft systems. Some aircraft systems automatically report back to line maintenance and dispatch unbeknownst to the crew (engine temperatures and vibration levels for example) using satellite communications while some items that the crew monitor are required mandatory reports to the dispatcher (fuel onboard at route check points for example). It's a very complicated dance with many highly trained professionals doing their part to ensure that safety today is a scientific pursuit vs. the "let's hope" or "best guess" process that I would say might describe oceanic travel in the early decades of jet flight.

More than you wanted to know I'd guess, but simply having a certified twin jet is just the barest beginning of the process to ensure safe twin jet oceanic operations.

Cheers,
Oly

[JReed]

Nope 2 will do. The DC9 is a twin engine plane the Marine Corps has 2 and they fly across the pond all the time.

That is true, but military rules do not apply to civil operations.

Two engines will do just fine for airline flights, but many added rules come into play to include maintenance that is required above and beyond what would be needed for overland flights. Indeed, both the pilots and the mechanics who maintain the birds must be ETOPS certified as well as the airline itself.

Oly

The aircraft I referred to operate out of civilian airports all the time so they have to conform to FAA and international regulations. But they are an exception to military owned aircraft and their pilots and mechs are ETOPS certified.
Naval guide lines mandate that Navy and Marine Corps aircraft must have 2 engines to transit over open water which is why the Marine Corps versions of the UH1 and the Cobra both had to be redesigned for twin engines before the Marine Corps could buy them.

[ArcticGoose]

I'm not sure about other places, but here in Alaska we do a lot of overwater flying. Mostly over the Bering Sea which is pretty much an ocean. The only requirement for our Saab 340's (twin turbo-prop with 30 passengers) is any flight greater then 50 miles from shore we are required to carry liferafts. Flying the Grumman Goose out of Dutch Harbor kept me over water more often then not. It was never far from shore, but I never carried liferafts in the Goose.

[olyinaz]

The aircraft I referred to operate out of civilian airports all the time so they have to conform to FAA and international regulations.

Jeremy, I would think that it's more like they do follow standard FAA and ICAO rules while operating in civil air space, but they don't have to. Military rules trump civil rules in the U.S. For example, I can't exceed some pretty mundane speeds in the airspace around air fields but military aircraft can (and do) go as fast as they wish. I've seen F-16s hit over 400 knots by the end of the runway at Tucson Intl. just for fun! No operational need whatsoever. I'd loose my ticket if I did that because it violates a handful of FARs (Federal Aviation Regulations). Well, actually, I'd over speed my current airplane if I did that!

But they are an exception to military owned aircraft and their pilots and mechs are ETOPS certified.

That is interesting! I'm not certain why they would feel the need to do that. Perhaps it has something to do with carriage of non-DOD folks from time to time? I dunno, but it sure doesn't seem to me that they would need to do that.

Naval guide lines mandate that Navy and Marine Corps aircraft must have 2 engines to transit over open water which is why the Marine Corps versions of the UH1 and the Cobra both had to be redesigned for twin engines before the Marine Corps could buy them.

A dang sensible policy if you ask me! And speaking of Cobras, I was just reading the other day about the Marine's new Cobra and it's brother, the latest version of the Huey. They both look like really modern aircraft with some great performance. Amazing when you consider how old the original design is. I guess you could say that about the C-130 also though. The best designs LAST.

Oly

[olyinaz]

I'm not sure about other places, but here in Alaska we do a lot of overwater flying. Mostly over the Bering Sea which is pretty much an ocean. The only requirement for our Saab 340's (twin turbo-prop with 30 passengers) is any flight greater then 50 miles from shore we are required to carry liferafts. Flying the Grumman Goose out of Dutch Harbor kept me over water more often then not. It was never far from shore, but I never carried liferafts in the Goose.

Yep, if we fly greater than 50 miles from the shoreline we have to have an "over water" equipped aircraft (slides that are rated for ditching, rafts, emergency equipment, and life jackets). That's the first over water issue. Then, if you are going to operate more than 60 minutes from a diversion alternate the ETOPS rules kick in. I would guess that those SAABS are planned to fly so that they don't trip that 60 minute rule when they're out over water (unless I'm missing something - I don't claim to be a Fed and it's been years since I was nose deep in the rule book).

Oly

[JReed]

Oly they carry millitery personnel and space A passengers to include retirees and dependents along with civilian government types. I would assume that is the main reason for the certs.

Yes the new cobras and UH1's are bad birds