Has SIA performed sensor modifications urged by AF pilots' union?

[Dynasty]

[QUOTE=boing;95604]The anti-ice source for the pitot is electrical, not bleed air.QUOTE]

I see! Maybe the book that I study has got some minor mistakes. But if the generators and the electrical systems are malfunction as well, that will be very troublesome, Right??

[boing]

But if the generators and the electrical systems are malfunction as well, that will be very troublesome, Right??

In that case, unreliable airspeed would be the least of their worries. The primary electrical source for an a/c is the engines. If all engines fail, there is still the APU, battery and the RAT as the final resort. So, very little chance of having a total power out. In fact, an A330 once landed with all engines out landing only with power provided by the RAT and batt. Don't remember the tech crew complaining about unreliable airspeed then.

Airbus A330 has got a very serious problem, its engine may in-flight flame out suddenly

Are you sure that A330 is the only a/c whose engines may IFSD suddenly ? Dude, any jet engine may IFSD suddenly irregardless of its airframe.
There were a spate of engine IFSD involving the B777, esp the B773ER wif its GE90 engines. Remember the BA that crashed short of the runway in LHR ? SQ had its fair share as well. Does that mean that the B777 has a very serious problem ?

[Dynasty]

The primary electrical source for an a/c is the engines. If all engines fail, there is still the APU, battery and the RAT as the final resort.

There were a spate of engine IFSD involving the B777... Remember the BA that crashed short of the runway in LHR ? Does that mean that the B777 has a very serious problem ?

I know each type of aircraft has installed with many back-up equipments. I'm an aircraft lover also. I know that even all the power has been lost and the control computers have been damaged, the plane still has a main wire linked with ailerons and the back rudder for pilot's ultimate control and gliding. Nevertheless, life is valueless, machine is machine; you may say I'm too phobia, but I really don't have much confidence with that.

Yup, for the B777, I have heard about that accident you mentioned. Investigators has also investigated that the problem may be due to icing of the fuel pipe at the nacelle pylon section; Boeing is now checking that. But I still think it is not a tiny problem and IFSD is a serious incident.

If I really need flying, what I must preferentially consider is the airline's safety record as well as reputation and whether the flight is equipped with 4-engined aircraft. Although majority of twin jets have been certified with ETOPS, again - confidence.

[sqdazz]

still going dynasty must be at least 10 posts since you said you wont comment on this any further

[boing]

The B777 accident's blocked fuel line was inside the engine. There was a thread regarding this in this forum

If I really need flying, what I must preferentially consider is the airline's safety record as well as reputation and whether the flight is equipped with 4-engined aircraft. Although majority of twin jets have been certified with ETOPS, again - confidence.

Sad to say, quad jets are going the way of the dodo. The most economic a/c now are the twins.

[zvezda]

I must preferentially consider is the airline's safety record as well as reputation and whether the flight is equipped with 4-engined aircraft. Although majority of twin jets have been certified with ETOPS, again - confidence.

There is no reason to believe that quads are safer than twins. Most problems that can shut down both engines on a twin would also shut down all four engines on a quad, for example, the BA 747 that lost all four engines after ingesting volcanic ash. Fuel that is too cold would have frozen and blocked all four engines as it blocked both in the BA 777. The main safety consequence of having four engines is that there is twice as much chance of an engine catching on fire. Because there is less to go wrong, twins have higher dispatch reliability rates than quads.

There will not be any more new design quads because it is not an economically competitive configuration. A twin of equal size with equal technology will cost substantially less to operate.

[boing]

There is no reason to believe that quads are safer than twins.

The statistics can show the reliability of the ETOPS program, and there's no doubt about that. But, personally, I still prefer a quad over a twin for a trans-oceanic flight.

A few years ago, a BA 747 outbound from US lost one of its engine soon after take off. Instead of turning back, the capt flew all the way to UK with 3 engines with no sweat. Even a prominent A380 operator suffered a few IFSD incidents on its A380s some time back. No emergency landing, no big fuss. The engine was relighted and the flight went as normal. Even the pax were not aware. Even a SQ b747 lost 3/4 of its engines soon after the BA 11 incident along the same route

Now if those incidents occurred on a twin, it will warrant a emergency landing. The chances are it will turn out well with all the backups. But the pax will definitely be shaking and scared. I've personally seen this from a B767 emergency landing soon after TO after an engine caught fire.

I'm not saying twins are dangerous. But, quads just give you a peace of mind. It's like comparing a Mcd happy value meal, and a Mcd Happy Value Meal Upsized. Which would make you happier ?

Even a lot of pilots, twins type rated among them, would prefer a quad over a twin, given a choice. I believe a significant proportion of the flying population thinks that way too.

And finally, Quads are far more better looking than twins,

[zvezda]

A few years ago, a BA 747 outbound from US lost one of its engine soon after take off. Instead of turning back, the capt flew all the way to UK with 3 engines with no sweat. Even a prominent A380 operator suffered a few IFSD incidents on its A380s some time back. No emergency landing, no big fuss. The engine was relighted and the flight went as normal. Even the pax were not aware. Even a SQ b747 lost 3/4 of its engines soon after the BA 11 incident along the same route

Now if those incidents occurred on a twin, it will warrant a emergency landing. The chances are it will turn out well with all the backups. But the pax will definitely be shaking and scared. I've personally seen this from a B767 emergency landing soon after TO after an engine caught fire.

If you have an IFSD with a twin and can relight the engine, you proceed to your destination (as with the example of the quad you mentioned) and most passengers will never know. If an engine catches fire with a quad, you're just about as likely to have a diversion as with a twin. Fire on board is not something to take chances with.

Personally, I feel safer in a twin, knowing that there are not as many things which could start a fire. I know commercial pilots who feel the same way.

Regardless, neither Airbus nor Boeing will ever develop a new quad again.

[boing]

4 vs 2

One of the A380s which had an engine flameout actually flew for a significant period of time on 3 engines attempting to restart the U/S engine in futile , all without declaring an emergency.

I guess this is like the never ending A vs B debate separating the aviation community, with no right or wrong group.

Regardless, neither Airbus nor Boeing will ever develop a new quad again.

That, I agree !
Sadly, they are going the way of the tri-holers. I don't foresee any quads after the A380 and B748.

[sumitsan]

Sadly, they are going the way of the tri-holers. I don't foresee any quads after the A380 and B748.

I guess that means A380-900 will never be in the assembly line.

[zvezda]

I guess that means A380-900 will never be in the assembly line.

An A380-900 would not be a new type; it would be derivative.

Anyway, the way WhaleJet sales have been going, I see little hope of an A380-900. Any sales would be cannibalizing A380-800 sales, so Airbus would need to be able to sell hundreds of them (at a higher margin than the A380-800s) to justify the development costs.