sajomojo

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 the ETOPS rule changes turn out to be a good choice over the long term.

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 probably have four engines.

I doubt the US President will be flying on a twin-engine plane any time soon. They'll choose the safest (American made) option. Probably an updated 747 model, no?

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 hundreds of miles.

If the FAA wanted to prioritize safety, it would still require the use of four-engined planes, as it used to for most long ocean routes. The desire to fly twin-engine planes over the ocean is entirely driven by a desire to maximize airline profits.

Admittedly, it does appear that modern twin-engine planes are reliable enough that it's not entirely crazy. But it would only take a couple of fatal engine failures to make it seem really dumb in retrospect.

People are weirdly dogmatic around this ETOPs rule change by the FAA. There is almost no one questioning it and yet the entire motivation is purely monetary. The FAA and airlines continue to push the limits further and further.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS