The un contained engine explosion and the tragic death on the Southwest flight today was an enormously improbable event, but it sort of made me wonder. What would have happened had this occurred on an ETOPS flight between Hawai'i and LAX or SEA?

I would assume that with a window missing and rents in the fuselage, the remaining single engine would be hard pressed to maintain much cabin pressurization. If not, I would again assume that the usual drift down scenario for maximizing range with an engine loss is now N/A, since the pax need to get down to an altitude where they won't require supplemental oxygen in 10-12 minutes.

Even so, if you were midway between Hawai'i and the US in flight time (allowing for winds), do you have reserve fuel enough to make it at - say - 12,500 MSL? Or is fuel consumption high enough at that altitude that you can't? Or at least, that you'd have to make a Hob's choice and fly at some higher altitude to make it, even knowing cabin pressurization might be above where you'd like it and more vulnerable people in the cabin, like those with COPD, might be placed at risk?

I realize most people are not going to see either an engine loss OR a rapid loss of cabin pressurization in their flying career, let alone the two as simultaneous events but I can't help but wonder how you ETOPS guys (and gals) would handle such a situation.

 

All contingencies (worst case) are planned for in terms of fuel available to get to the nearest suitable airport.

 

Does the planning consider continuing the flight at 10k altitude with uncontained engine damage possibly causing a fuel leak in one main wing tank? That could be a loss of several thousand pounds of fuel plus significantly higher fuel flow from low altitude, single engine ops, and higher drag around the damaged nacelle and past the busted-out window.

I'm not sure any aircraft doing ETOPS would fare well in that situation. That's one reason why a single-blade shedding event is supposed to remain contained, as part of the original certification process.

 

ETOPS does factor in depressurizing and flying at 10,000' feet to destination or returning.

 

There are risks to everything.

ETOPS doesn’t account for fires-for example. In any major fire scenario, planes have become unflyable in 30 mins or less. In that sort of situation, you are in the water.

The folks who set out to design ETOPS knew there would eventually be non-good-outcome scenarios. They should be rare, but one day, one will happen.

The hole in fuel tank, extra drag scenarios, and other such events all have “in the water” as the outcome. Same can happen on a 3 or 4 engine plans.

Life has risk

 

ETOPS accounts for engine out plus unpressurized cruise at 10k to the divert field. No engine/pack combo could maintain cabin pressure with a window out.

ETOPS does not account for excess drag due to structural failure... that would probably not work out with typical fuel loads.

 

I’ve flown with a few foreign ETOPs/EDto operators in 3 different continents. None have subscribed to the requirements you cite unless the airlines you cite are not ICAO members.

 

I have heard exactly the same story from a guy who’s brother flies for one of the ME3

He said they regularly launch with about enough fuel to do a missed and flame out before a second attempt.

Those guys are on individual contracts which can be cancelled at any time. What do you expect them to do?

 

They’re grown ups... and can make decisions concerning their imminent threat to safety and careers. Been there done that, and have a few t-shirts.

 

Couldn’t have said it better.

Lee