• Join FlightAware (Why Join?)
  • Login
  • US Flag 
09:28AM EDT


 

Airport Tracker/Info


-or-


 

Squawks & HeadlinesIs a 737 too small to fly over an ocean?

Back to Squawk list

Is a 737 too small to fly over an ocean?

Submitted
You don't have to worry about swimming home. A captain answers the question. (www.usatoday.com) More...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


preacher1
preacher1 21
ETOPS: Engines Turn Or Passengers Swim
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
Hmm.. Where have I heard that term before ....
preacher1
preacher1 1
Well, it got 11 thumbs up, anyway.lol Thanks for sharing it.lol
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
I made it 12
preacher1
preacher1 1
Bless your heart.lol
mschacht44
Mike Schacht 1
One more for lucky 13.
bishops90
Brian Bishop 1
I think I was #7!
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
WOW now over 20
Moviela
Ric Wernicke 0
Old Pan Am spiel:

"Because this flight operates over water there is a flotation device in a pouch under the seat. You may reach down and feel your pouch, but don't take it out unless directed to do so by a crew member."

Never had a worry. My pouch stayed safely stowed.
jbermo
James Bermingham 2
I am told anyway, that flotation devices are there only to aid in
the body count.
preacher1
preacher1 1
andytyler
Andy Tyler 4
i wouldn't mind doing 737s over water. 757s have been doing it for years, and the 737NG is a much newer aircraft.
bishops90
Brian Bishop 2
I've been on 738's dozens of times from IAH, IAD, and EWR to Piarco Trinidad and were hardly ever over land. Granted those routes are not super far out, it was never a concern.
Cactus732
Cactus732 2
Air Canada and British Airways fly Trans-Atlantic with Airbus A319/A318, the FAA don't randomly hand out ETOPS certifications to any aircraft. It's not really the size of the aircraft that matters, US to hawaii is almost exclusively flown by twin engine aircraft, not sure why anyone would be more concerned by a 737 than a 767.
JENNYJET
JENNIFER JORDAN 1
BA also make a technical stop at SHANNON on the outbound leg from LHR and I assume that A318 with those valuable 1st class humans on board probably hug the nearest landmasses as closely as possible just in case of the unforseen variables etc...!

NO thank you folks, 4 engines over oceans or I go by boat! But hey..if it was a twin I would consider it on a multi stop flight say London, reykyavik, New York and LA for instance since I love flying and the take offs and landinds break up a long flight somewhat but this is my romantic view since I am no bean counter.
JENNYJET
JENNIFER JORDAN 1
Give the 737 another 2 engines then I may board one for a transatlantic flight, heck I will not go on a 777 over an ocean!!
JENNYJET
JENNIFER JORDAN 1
Okay folks, she wishes to respond to some of your very welcome remarks.

I do not wish to insult any of you US citizens when relating the old western pioneer days when we only had Wells & Fargo coming together amongst other to provide a sevice to enable communications from East to West etc. with all the troubles inbetween considered and acknowledged etc....the Stage coaches chose a team of 4 horses if not more to do a job, I guess because two or three was not good enough for the job in hand and it worked for them.

Boeing chose four engines to do the work because it was the best solution at that time to solve a problem and I believe that it was possibly the finest decision in aviation design given the tasks and demands of the airlines with the technoogies of the time.

Moving to the 21st century and flight demands, I am sure that Boeing are correct in their pride in the B777 but may I ask why their biggest competitor does not follow other than with the A350?

Personally speaking. I trust 4 over 2 when it comes to trans ocean transport if not on a boat!
jbermo
James Bermingham 1
I am told that LAX-HNL is the longest over water route in the world in terms of "equal time point".
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 1
He says"all jets have to decend if they lose an engine". The reader could take that to mean they decend to an airport, land, or water; whichever comes first. Lol
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
I see no problem with this as long as all the safe guards are met. The 737's are one of the best around.
DashTrash
DashTrash 1
We flew West Coast - HA in all sorts of bizjets without ETOPS. No big deal, but also not Part 121.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Where you been. rather late but I sent you an FA Email msg this morning. Hope ya'll all OK and not in that blizzard; we had it down here last night. We got about 10"
preacher1
preacher1 1
You are probably correct. Nothing much comes to mind as being between them and the mainland.
preacher1
preacher1 1
May not be a big deal but it does apply to part 135, and actually the way it's written, it is not specific to over water, it is just time specific to a diversion airport. That said, I think there is something in there on aircraft size buried in the bowels of it, as there was a lot of bizjet and 2 engine domestic stuff around long befor they promulgated any of those rules and when they did do the rules, that's when they took in the land thing to. Most everybody thinks about the water and I don't even know if 121 operators are paying attention to the land thing anyway as a diversion airport is generally required anyway.
preacher1
preacher1 1
That sort of limits you to a 747 of some type,an A380 or any A340's that are still flying. With the whole world going that 2 engine way, Jenifer, it would be safe to say that the pilots or other pax don't want to swim either. Granted there is an extra margin of safety there with 4 engines but the safety record is speaking for itself. As the car commercials go, " they ain't your fathers airplanes". Mx varies between the companies, but I flew a 757 out of the lower midwest, across both ponds, without a hiccup. I can understand your feeling though. My wife will look away when we drive across a tall bridge or pull a shade for the entire trip flying though.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Personally speaking, it's called economics. Boeing's chief competetitor halted production on the A340, which was a fine 4 engine plane but nobody would buy it anymore because of the extra cost associated with those other 2 engines and not enough pax would pay the price it would take to keep it flying. As I alluded to in another comment, you are probably not alone in your feelings, but economics/high fuel prices/deregulation started driving the move to 2 engines, not pax feelings.
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 1
She probably wouldn't be interested in flying across the Rocky Mountains in a piston single in the winter time either. Lol
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 1
Merry Christmas. Just got a few inches here. Didn't see no stinking blizzard. You better go easy with the snow shovel old man! Class 1 medical ain't no guarantee. Lol
JENNYJET
JENNIFER JORDAN 1
I fully understand what you are saying so take the 777 as an example and just one bird takes out one of the engines or a blade is uncontained, the only options are to seek immediate landing or limp on if possible to destination on a single engine. With a 4 engined ship, the available back up is normally enough to continue to destination. This simple logic of safety and design is why etops was designed for the big twins after all!!
JENNYJET
JENNIFER JORDAN 1
Noted but plaese keep in mind my logic, 4 engines over the Pacific or Atlantic where sectors are long enough to generate doubt if twin jets are deployed......just one possible example is AF447.....if it was A340 and not A330?

As for operational costs....exactly what costs are we speaking of? Safety or fuel?
preacher1
preacher1 2
From all that has been said about 447, I doubt 4 engines would have made any difference as the cockpits were similar. I don't believe there was an engine problem on that flight.
As for operational cost, while safety figures in there, hence ETOPS planning and a diversion airport, fuel and that 3rd man in the cockpit make a big difference.

FAA says you can do it ths way with 2(ETOPS), Boeing, Airbus, GE & Rolls Royce says we can build the AC's and engines to do it; Airlines say look at all that money I'll save, and here we went. Like I said earlier, the 747, 380, or remaining 340's are your choices. You'll notice that pax desires aren't in that equation anywhere.
preacher1
preacher1 2
This is one snowfall that I can sit here with my feet to the fire. God put it here and I'll watch him take it away.lol. I don't have to go anywhere. Not much melt tonite, as matter of fact probably a refreeze, but supposed to get out of here tomorrow. I have an appointment in town late Friday afternoon and it should all be gone by then. I am watching that shovel, standing right against the wall where it has been.lol
JENNYJET
JENNIFER JORDAN 1
Perhaps the wrong example re:447 but my thoughts are with the possible, if not probable extra back-up that a 4 jet ship offers above the big twins. Is fuel more valuable above that 1% safety margin that gets a plane to destination? To me it is simple, more is better than less when flying long sectors over water and theB747's and the Airbuses 340/380 seems preferable to me.
preacher1
preacher1 1
I don't disagree with you but that fuel makes a big difference to the bean counters that buy the planes and per the previous equation, that's what the Airlines said they wanted and the companies and FAA gave it to them.
preacher1
preacher1 1
That is the reason for the flying time and diversion airport within ETOPS. Thats the safety. What you are talking about seems to be convenience had by going on to your destination.
preacher1
preacher1 1
LOL. On the serious side, she also needs to know that the 340 is going away, and that the only reasons the 747 and 380 have 4 engines is not for safety of pax going across the pond, but to handle that size airplane, it don't matter if it's Dallas or Heathrow. As sales of the big ones languish, I personally feel that over the years, that they will be totally replaced by the 777 or 350 or some derivative. Even with the 4 engines, they are already down to 2 in the cockpit and I figure that one of these years that engine technology will go that way as well.
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 1
2 jet engines, a load of fuel, and some experience up front isn't much risk anymore. Probably safer than the drive to O'hare at rush hour in a taxi with an Indian driver.
preacher1
preacher1 1
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
Chicago Drivers are much safer... You should drive down him in Memphis, TN... that is where all the crazy drivers are... :)
preacher1
preacher1 1
I'd have to agree with that
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 1
There are plenty to go around!!!
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
Yup... I have driven in both. Chicago has much more courteous and safer drivers... If you don't beleive me... Come down and I will prove it to you. I had an idiot go around me at over 120 mph, try to turn into his apartment, obviously went wide and drove into a lake... Then got out and ran to his girl friends car. Whey they saw me writing down her license plate and calling the police they decided not to leave. On the same day a car went around me on the outside lane, just as soon as he got in front of me lost control, and went head first into a concrete median strip. You see cars down here with no bumpers. Exhaust scraping the ground, or just not there, Hoods and bumpers that are held on with bungee cords because they have been in accidents, and you know it has been that way because of all the rust. That is just a few samples... I do not have the rest of the night to explain the rest... Come on down Wallace. I will prove it too you in less than 1 Day. Can meet you at KMEM :)
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 1
Thanks for the invite. I have driven there recently as our new home office is there on Brooks rd. I saw plenty of crazies there. But it only takes one to ruin your day, no matter where you're driving. BTW, Memphis is not one of my favorite places in the world. I only go when necessary. Grew up in Chicago. I love to visit for about 2 days max. No longer a city slicker. Lol
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
BTW,Allstate released a report that stated MEM was voted number 2 for drivers in the US.... #2 for having the worst drivers followed closely by Washington DC
preacher1
preacher1 1
Is Memphis Pete who bought ya'll out?
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 1
Memphis Freightliner(Tag Truck Center).
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 1
Looks like you better drive defensively in a big ol' Ford truck Sparkie.
preacher1
preacher1 1
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
FORD.. UGH... That is going to far... I drive a "CHEVY SUBURBAN" FULL SIZE... To think a Ford TRUCK ;(
preacher1
preacher1 1
Are you still working? I thought they sent you to the house too.

WALLACE24
WALLACE24 1
I'm on the payroll till end of the month/year. Then maybe I can find time to fly my new ride. :-)
preacher1
preacher1 1
10-4, good luck to ya. I guess that's when I'll go back to putting in some regular time. I don't know what I'll do when that warm weather and sweet tea / fishing time comes along though.I kinda got to enjoying that.lol
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 1
Just count it as a little chunk of your retirement. My first trip was to Chicago. Next one is heading 180. Ready for a chunk of warmth and even tea. Haha
preacher1
preacher1 1
The way it is right now, you will have to go a pretty good ways to find it good and war. We got about 10" on the ground here and not much melt today. I got a sister that lives down in So. AL just above Gulf Shores and she said it was supposed to get down to 30 down there tonite.lol
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 1
My trip will be dictated by the weather patterns now and not when it's convenient to skip work. We only got a couple degrees above freezing here too. Snow is hanging on.
Pileits
Pileits -1
Leave it to USAToday to put out drivel news just to "plump up" their rag paper.
preacher1
preacher1 2
Yeah, other carriers have been ETOPS cert for a good while. I remember earlier this year all the hooplah about one of LUV's new 737's showing ETOPS cert on the gear door and it was such a big SURPRISE SURPRISE, as if they weren't going to have to have it when the started their Mexican routes of of Hobby later on.
siriusloon
siriusloon 2
What "drivel news"? Someone asked a legitimate question (the only stupid question is the one that isn't asked) and they researched it and provided a factual answer.

What intrigues me is why you read "drivel news"?
StymieHo
Chris Donawho 1
Agreed, in this particular case, a reader submitted a question and the columnist answered it accurately, without spinning out some sort of political rifting you see in other papers. Just because we all know why ETOPS is around doesnt mean the average traveller does.

Now to have some fun with him, let's ask the columnist to explain why the hell lift has ANYTHING to do with air going over the wing as opposed to under... Or to explain drag coefficient, etc... You know, just to see if he'll touch physics with a ten foot pole.
preacher1
preacher1 1
You feelin' bad mean this morning, my friend.lol
captaineasy
Dave Graham 1
get a life....