ALERT - Multiple Recent Airliner Engine Failures Expose
the Obvious Danger of 2-Engine Airliner Trans-Pacific flights


AIRLINE SAFETY (Al Rioni Enterprises) publishes this secure website as a public service with no ads

This website is regularly revised and edited with updated info
Last revision 06/02/2024

The information and opinions contained in this report are the result of 50+ years of aviation experience

This NTSB/FAA Report
is Registered With the
US Library of Congress
-- US Copyright 2021 --


xxx Because of the recent and significant increase in the number of airliner engine failures, aircraft maintainance, and quality control problems, being reported almost daily, concerning defects on Boeing and Airbus airliners, these webpages are an attempt to challenge the incredibly powerful airline lobby, and, to convince federal airline regulators to re-instate the much safer former FAA requirement that airliners, crossing vast expanses of open ocean, isolated and all alone, many hours, and thousands of over-ocean miles from the closest land, must have 3 or 4 engines, which have the necessary engine and system redundancy required for maximum passenger and crew safety on these long-haul extended over-ocean flights, and, to abandon the current cost-cutting and dangerous airline policy of using airliners having only 2 engines, which, as the many recent engine failures prove, lack the sufficient engine and system redundancy needed to insure maximum passenger and crew safety on these extended over-ocean passenger laden flights.

xxx This website was created by AIRLINE SAFETY as a non-revenue public service bulletin in order to alert trans-Pacific airline passengers of this recent significant and alarming increase in the number of mid-ocean airliner engine failures, and, close-call ocean ditchings of passenger filled airliners, after the failure of 1 of only 2 engines, including Hawaii bound United Airlines Flights #1175 and #328, and Australia bound Flight#839, and, other mid-ocean near catastrophies.

xxx These "Close-call" mid-ocean near-ditchings occurred, because of, as recent near-catastrophic events have shown, these huge airliners uncertain flight capabilities after the failure of 1 of only 2 engines, on extended over-ocean flights, and, which nearly caused these airliners to ditch into the enormous Pacific Ocean, and, which would certainly have resulted in the deaths of hundreds of innocent passengers. (See below pages for detailed descriptions of these events)


xxx My name is Al Rioni. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxx I am the owner/operator of Al Rioni Enterprises, a book publisher.
***My aviation books are available thru Barnes & Noble and

***The address for Al Rioni Enterprises is PO Box 81894 Las Vegas, NV 89180

***The e-mail address is -

***I am also a retired airline/corporate ATP pilot with over 50 years and many thousands of hours of multi-engine flying experience in piston, Turbo-prop, and high altitude corporate jets.
***I received my Airline Transport Pilot Certificate (ATP) in 1974, and spent the next several years flying in the high-density airspace over the Northeast US, including extensive operations in New York, Philadelphia, and Washington DC airspace.

***During my years as a commercial pilot, I have experienced 2 engine failures.

***Also, because of my many years as a corporate pilot, and my close associations with many "Fortune 500" corporate executives and government regulators, I have become very familiar with the corporate/government relationship.

**For these reasons, I feel I am entitled to, and qualified to, express the following opinions.

**3 Years ago, I started AIRLINE SAFETY.

xxx For these 3 difficult years, I have been on, what has become, a "Mission" to eliminate what any sane and knowledgeable aviation executive, government official, and, any competent and conscientious pilot, is fully aware of, is a critical airline safety issue, specifically, the switch from
4-engine airliners to airliners having only 2 engines, on long-haul over ocean air routes, which has substantially compromised the previously very high airline safety standards regarding extended over-ocean air travel, and, which is perpetuated on the innocent flying public by profit-obsessed airline excecutives, thru their powerful lobby, who have "convinced" the US FAA & NTSB and other international aviation regulatory agencies, to ignore these indisputable safety issues, and, to continue to allow this profit motivated and obviously dangerous reduction of over-ocean airline safety standards.


***I believe this aviation safety information, contained in this website, will convince any objective and safety conscious person, that the FAA allowing this cost-cutting switch from 4-engine airliners to 2-engine airliners on extended over-ocean flights to Hawaii, Asia, and other far away over-water destinations, was a mistake, and, is a very serious and valid airline safety issue which should be re-evaluated before, not after, a catastrophic mid-ocean disaster occurs.

xxx I am fully aware of the enormous financial and operational committment the airline companies, and, the aircraft manufacturers, have made in the production and use of these fuel-saving
2-engine airliners on extended over-ocean flights, and, of the huge expense and inconvenience involved in returning to the previous 3 or 4 engine over-ocean policy, but, as it was in past days, maximizing passenger and crew safety, rather than allowing dangerous airline cost-cutting policies, must always be the primary consideration in government regulations concerning extended over-ocean passenger flights.

xxx It is the alarming increase in the number of recently occurring airliner engine failures, listed below, (see Appendix A) including many mid-ocean engine failures, which have caused close-call passenger filled airliner ocean ditchings, which has prompted this effort to return to the previous
4-engine safety standards for extended over-ocean passenger flights.

xxx As stated above, these recent near ocean ditchings happened because these huge 500,000 pound 2-engine airliners, after engine failure(s), as history has shown, have very uncertain flight capabilities with only 1 operating engine.

xxx This 2-engine over-water danger "ALERT" applies only to flights to the Hawaiian Islands, to Asia, and to other extended over-ocean international destinations, when these passenger filled airliners are far out over the enormous Pacific ocean, isolated and all alone, and, many miles and many hours away from the closest land - - - This ALERT does not apply to 2-engine airliner flights over-land, when, should an engine failure, or, other problems occur, these airliners are never more than a few minutes away from a suitable airport.

***(After reading this important airline safety information, and, if in agreement with its contents, it is my hope and request, that anyone planning a long over-ocean airline trip, or, anyone else interested in airline safety, will email the link - - to their congressperson or senator, asking for a federal investigation of the "Risk vs. Benefit" of this critical and dangerous over-ocean airline policy switch to using airliners having only 2 engines on extended over-ocean flights.
***All US Senators and Congresspersons have their email addresses or other messaging methods on their official websites.
***I am hoping that a huge response to this website will persuade these federal representatives to initiate a truly objective investigation into this crucial airline safety issue).

Page 1 of 10

xxx As stated above, this recent policy change, from 4 to 2-engine airliners, on extended over-water flights, was prohibited by more knowledgable and responsible former government regulators of the past.

xxx See: Below - - -

---- From Wikipedia

xxx - "Dick Taylor, then Boeing's director of engineering, approached FAA director
J. Lynn Helms, (a few years ago, when 3 or 4 engine airliners were still required for extended over-ocean flights), about the possibility of an exemption to the 3 or 4 engine FAA over-ocean flight requirement.
** Mr. Helm's famous response was "It'll be a cold day in Hell before I let twins fly long haul, overwater routes".

**Therefore, according to Mr. Helms, who was also a very experienced pilot, with full knowledge of the obvious dangers of 2-engine over-ocean flight, the opinions expressed, in this Report, are not conspiracy theories, but, were shared by the highest level FAA officials of the past, who may have been more responsible, more safety minded, and, less concerned with accomodating powerful business interests.

--- Important Note - - -The safety concerns expressed in this document are timeless, as the world's oceans are just as vast, cold, and deep, today, as they were during the FAA Administration of Mr. Helms, and, engine failures continue to occur on a regular basis today, just as they did in the past.

xxx In fact, contrary to the airline's deceptive and ass/covering engine failure statistics, there seems to be a greater number of engine failures occurring now, than there were in the past.

**The increasing frequency of these airliner engine failures may be because, as these airliners and their engines continue to age, (Many with thousands and thousands of hours of flight time) they are more likely to fail - hence - the need for more engine redundancy on long-haul/extended over-ocean flights.

***Soon after Mr. Helms "Retired", and, contrary to Mr. Helm's over-ocean safety policies, the powerful airline lobby, continuing with their money lust and seeking increased airline profits, was successful at "Persuading" the new FAA Administrator into approving this dangerous cost-cutting, and obviously risky program, which allows the use of 2-engine airliners on these extended over-ocean flights.


***NOTE -- (AIRFORCE ONE - Although the 2-engine Boeing 777 & 787's are equal in cabin size, comfort, and speed, and, are cheaper for the government to operate than the 4-engine Boeing 747's which are used as AirForce One, and, which transport the President of the United States on long trans-Pacific flights to Japan, China, and to other far away over-ocean destinations -- regardless of their higher operating costs, AirForce One's are, nevetheless, 4 engine Boeing 747's.
xxx The new aircraft, which are to replace the current aging AirForce One 747's, are also 4-engine 747's.
xxx The "Heads of State" of most other countrys also travel in 4-engine aircraft.
xxx It would be interesting to get an official, on the record, statement from the Secret Service as to whether or not they require that AirForce One have 4 engines, and whether or not, considering the many recently reported airliner engine failures, they would allow the President to make direct flights across the vast Pacific Ocean, many hours away from the closest land, aboard an aircraft having only 2 engines).


***At the inception of the 2-engine over-ocean policy, a study was done by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), which listed the many additional risks to the flying public created by the use of 2-engine airliners on extended over-ocean flights.

** At this same time, McDonnell Douglas Corp., a major aircraft manufacturer and defense contractor, (DC-3, DC-6, DC-7, DC-8, DC-9, DC-10, MD-80, F-4 Phantom) and, because of the obvious safety concerns, refused to participate in, and, refused to be associated with the 2-engine airliner over-ocean program.

**In spite of this very credible opposition and warnings about the dangers of using airliners having only 2 engines on long-haul over-ocean flights, and, considering the alarming increase in the number of recent airliner engine failures, and other quality-control manufacturing problems, the money/profit-obsessed airline executives are still apparently unable to overcome this uncontrollable "money-lust" and, are still ignoring the credible warnings of the obvious dangers of extended 2-engine airliner over-ocean flights, and, are still continuing with, and, even expanding these 2-engine over-ocean policies.

*** (Pilots are obviously aware of this 2-engine over-ocean safety issue, but, being in much better physical condition than helpless children and elderly or disabled passengers, and, probably being prepared in advance with an escape plan in case of a possible ocean ditching, I believe they may think they have at least a decent chance of surviving an ocean ditching, and, therefore, in order to keep their glamorous and well-paying jobs, pilots ignore this personal risk, and betray their trusting passengers by remaining silent on this critical 2-engine safety issue.

** I'm a pilot, too, and, I know how pilot's think.

Page 2 of 10

** A copy of this NTSB Report was sent to the President of the Airline Pilot's Association, Capt. Jason Ambrosi, and, to the President of the Association of Flight Attendants, Ms. Sara Nelson, so far, without acknowledgement.

**Their silence on this important safety issue makes one wonder who these union leaders are actually more loyal to, their union members, or, the airline industry.

***As this Report is written in non-technical language - - all any reader really needs to have, in order to understand and evaluate this airline safety information, is basic human common sense.

-- I recently posted this 10-page Website/Safety Alert as a public service ad on Facebook --
-- This Facebook post received 10 times more "Clicks" and "Views" than a typical Facebook post --
-- This was due the obvious widespread public interest in airline safety issues --
-- The ad also received many favorable comments from pilots and aircraft mechanics --
-- However, Facebook cancelled the ad for "Content" after receiving complaints from the affected airlines --
-- Therefore, I believe Facebook deprived the flying public from information vital to their safety --

***I believe the danger of these 2-engine extended over-ocean passenger flights is being hidden from the flying public.

***Contrary to Facebook censors, I believe the flying public has a right to be made aware of this critical airline safety information, so that over-ocean airline passengers are able to evaluate this information for themselves, in order to make informed decisions as to their risk tolerance.

***That is why I have expended an enormous amount of time and effort in researching this issue and preparing these documents, and, presenting this information to various government officials and airline executives, in the hopes that they will re-consider this obviously dangerous 2-engine over-water policy, (Explained, in detail, below).


***I have no personal animosity toward any company, company executive, politician, nor, government agency, nor, am I seeking any personal financial gain from this endeavour.

***This website is "Ad-free" - - AIRLINE SAFETY receives no income from this website, nor, as a result of this effort.

***In fact, AIRLINE SAFETY has spent considerable resources in obtaining the domains, secure websites, internet hosting services, and, social media advertising programs.

***This is because, as stated above, I believe that innocent passenger lives are at risk, and, as I approach the end of a life-long membership in the aviation community, and, as a final contribution to the world of aviation, I feel I must make my best effort to help correct this dangerous safety situation and to prevent a mid-ocean airline disaster, which I believe, is waiting to happen.


***NOTE -- (A couple of years ago, many airlines, such as British Airways, Emirates, Etihad Airways, Quantas, Singapore Airlines, and, Lufthansa, put their 4-engine Airbus A380s, and, 4-engine Boeing 747s, into storage, and, stated, at that time, that they were "Permanently" retiring these 4-engine aircraft, because of their higher operating costs and higher fuel usage.
***However, since the widspread internet circulation, and, the overwhelmingly favorable response to this AIRLINE SAFETY blog - ( ), which describes, in detail, the considerable risk involved in
2-engine airliner over-ocean passenger flights, as posted on Facebook (before cancellation), and, on other media, all 6 of these major airlines, and others, seem to have decided to reconsider this 2-engine over-ocean policy, and, have announced that they are returning many of their 4-engine Airbus A380s back into service.
***In addition, there have recently been many YouTube aviation videos published announcing the return of the 4-engine Boeing 747.
***Boeing has recently stated that it has retained all the tooling and manufacturing equipment necessary to re-start production of the 747.
***It is, however, uncertain as to whether or not this change in airline policy may be the result of the flying public's widespread interest in, and, agreement with, the 2-engine over-water safety issues described in this AIRLINE SAFETY blog.
***It is also uncertain as to whether or not the airlines re-interest in 4-engine airliners may be the result of any public pressure which may have been put on the FAA and/or the management of these airlines, as is urged in this widely read AIRLINE SAFETY blog, which requests that the public contact their representatives and demand an investigation into this 2-engine airliner safety issue.
***After the blog - - was posted on Facebook (before cancellation), and, probably because of the resulting "word of mouth" - - has been visited many-many hundreds of times from all over the world, including Europe, Asia, and has also been viewed by many federal offices, including multiple views by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
***It would be very gratifying for me personally, if this return to the use of 4-engine airliners on extended over-ocean flights, by so many different airlines, (oddly, all occuring at the same time), is the result of the widespread circulation and viewership, and, the overwhelmingly favorable response to, this AIRLINE SAFETY blog which describes the obvious danger which was created by the switch from 4-engine airliners to 2-engine airliners on extended over-ocean passenger flights.
***Of course, the affected airlines would never publically admit that they have been endangering their passengers by using 2-engine airliners on long-haul over ocean flights, but, have, understandably, cited other reasons for returning their 4-engine airliners for use on these extended overwater flights after stating that they had been permanently retired.)

**(Notwithstanding the "Miracle on the Hudson", in New York City, where an Airbus successfully ditched into the very smooth waters of the Hudson River, and was quickly surrounded by numerous close-by rescue boats, which, incredibly, resulted in no fatalities, even though the tail of the airplane did ultimately rupture, allowing water to rush in.

**However, an airliner attempting to ditch into the much rougher waters of the mid-Pacific, would most likely break apart upon hitting the water, as occurred a few years ago when a 2-engine Boeing 767 airliner, (Ethiopian Airlines Flight #961), broke into pieces while attempting to ditch in the ocean, off the coast of Africa, ejecting its passengers into the sea, obviously resulting in numerous fatalities). (see: Below)

(See: YouTube video "Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961" to see what it looks like when a commercial airliner ditches into the ocean.

***I believe that any truly objective person, after reading the following pages, and, after considering the many recent airliner engine failures, and, when considering the catastrophic circumstances of a commercial airliner, filled with hundreds of passengers, including children and infants, ditching into the ocean, after engine failure(s), will come to the same conclusion as I, and many others have, as to the obvious danger and incredible risk caused by the switch from 4-engine airliners to airliners having only 2 engines on extended over-ocean passenger flights.

Page 3 of 10

xxx This internet website - - is an updated version of a copyrighted 14 page Safety Report I have submitted to the National Transportation & Safety Board, (NTSB), and, to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), in which I express my opinions of the dangerous airline switch from the previous FAA requirement that airliners, used on extended over-ocean flights, must have 3 or 4 engines, to the current cost-cutting/profit-motivated policy of using airliners having only 2 engines, which are cheaper for the airlines to operate, but, lack the previously required engine and system redundancy needed on these extended over-ocean passenger flights.

xxx For aviation professionals, aviation enthusiasts, or, all others interested in airline safety issues, please continue reading this 10 page abbreviated report (Including Appendixes A, B, C, & D), before agreeing/ disagreeing/ defending/ condoning/ ignoring, this obvious profit motivated and safety reducing 2-engine airliner over-ocean policy, which was prohibited by previous FAA regulations, and, which has caused many recent "close-call" catastrophic ocean-ditchings of passenger filled airliners.

xxx I challenge anyone, either aviation professionals, (including pilots), airplane manufacturers, airline executives, government regulators, aviation enthusiasts, or, anyone else, to find any statements in this Report which are not 100% accurate and logical.

xxx Continue reading for a detailed description of this dangerous situation.


xxx Several decades ago, the University of Chicago economist George Stigler pointed out that the problem with regulation is that the regulatory agencies are sooner or later captured by the regulated industry and become servants of the industries they were created to regulate.

xxx (The Air Transport industry, thru their various lobbys, is one of the largest financial "donors" to the US Senate and House of Representatives, contributing over one-hundred & four million dollars ($104,000,000 - plus other "perks"), to various government officials, in 2019.)


xxx As would be expected, my efforts to correct this dangerous situation are being fiercly opposed by the powerful airline lobby, and publically ignored and/or hidden by the FAA, and, by the NTSB, with the assistance of a compliant media.

xxx For a partial list of the many recently occurring airliner engine failures, and, for examples of some peculiar/suspicious/unlikely "Official Explanations" for some 2-engine airliner ocean crashes - - - see: Appendix - "A" at the end of this message

xxx For a "Peer-Review" of this safety report - - - see: Appendix - "C" at the end of this message


xxx (A few years ago, after intensive lobbying by the airline industry, the FAA created a controversial money/fuel-saving program called "ETOPS" (Extended Twin-engine Operation Procedures Standards), which allowed, for the first time, and contrary to specific FAA prohibitions in effect at that time, the airlines to switch from the previous FAA requirement that only airliners having 3 or 4 engines could be used on extended over-ocean passenger flights, to the cost-cutting/fuel-saving policy of using airliners having only 2 engines on these very long and isolated over-ocean passenger flights, and, which has subsequently caused many near airliner ocean ditchings after engine failure(s).
xxx The ETOPS Program was implemented in an attempt to give legitimacy to this dangerous, cost-cutting, and previously prohibited 2-engine over-ocean policy.
xxx The need for this extremely complex ETOPS engine-failure diversion program, and its complicated over-ocean engine failure procedures, actually proves that the FAA, and the airlines, are fully aware of the obvious danger of using airliners having only 2 engines on extended over-ocean passenger flights, and, therefore, the need for them to fabricate some sort of official looking/sounding, but, highly irrational, justification for this reduction of over-ocean safety standards.
xxx The government regulators, and, other aviation "Professionals", who apparently endorsed this money-saving - safety reducing ETOPS Program, were obviously, in my opinion, very heavily "Incentivised" by the airlines, and, by the airplane manufacturers, into endorsing something I believe they knew was inherently dangerous.
xxx ETOPS consists of very complicated engine-failure procedures, useless graphs and charts, and ridiculous "3-4-5, and now 6 hour maximum 1-engine over-ocean flight rings to and from the nearest diversion land airport" - - none of which were necessary before ETOPS, and, none of which come anywhere close to compensating for the enormous risk of ETOPS 2-engine extended over-ocean passenger flights, and, none of which have any actual, practical, nor, useful value to the passengers aboard a 2-engine airliner, in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, many hours away from the closest land, and, unable to maintain altitude with only 1 operating engine, and, is in an unstoppable descent into the ocean.
xxx ETOPS was obviously created to give the federal regulators and airline executives something to hide behind in order to protect themselves from any corporate, and/or personal liability for any airline disasters which may be the result of these money-saving/profit-motivated, and, previously-prohibited, and, now, ETOPS-justified, 2-engine over-ocean passenger flights.


xxx When the ETOPS Program was begun, and, because of the inevitability of future over-ocean engine failures, the maximum over-water distance that a 2-engine airliner was allowed to be from a diversion airport (closest land-based airport) was 1 hour.
xxx Also, at the inception of the ETOPS Program, the FAA required an additional inspection, by an FAA certified mechanic, of 2-engine airliners, prior to each extended over-ocean flight.
xxx The FAA requiring these additional pre-flight inspections was another "Un-official Acknowledgment" of the obvious risk of extended over-ocean passenger flights using airliners having only 2 engines, and, the need for these additional mechanical inspections, prior to each extended over-ocean flight.
xxx However, this inspection requirement, which was initially used to "sell" the ETOPS Program, was soon cancelled by the FAA.
xxx The reason given by the FAA for cancelling this inspection requirement was that it was "Too burdensome on the airlines".
xxx Then, of course, the FAA, after more "Pressure" from the airline lobby, and, without public knowledge, nor, input, allowed the airlines to gradually - little by little - increase the ETOPS Program's original 1-hour from land restriction that 2-engine airliners are permitted to fly -- first to 2 hours -- next to 3 hours -- next -- to 4 hours -- then 5 hours.

xxx The profit-seeking airlines continue to keep pushing and streching the limits of airline safety and normal human common sense, and now, in spite of the many recently occurring airliner engine failures, and, in spite of the very uncertain flight capabilities of these very large 2-engine airliners, when operating with only 1 engine, (see: United Airlines Flight #1175 Engine-failure Incident), the FAA, incredibly, has recently allowed the 2-engine Airbus A350 XWB to fly extended over-ocean routes which take these passenger filled airliners over 6 hours away from the closest diversion airport.
xxx These trans-oceanic airline passengers are completely unaware of the increasing danger they are being subjected to by these constantly increasing distances from land that 2-engine airliners are permitted to fly.
xxx Considering the alarming increase in the number of recent airliner engine failures, the FAA allowng the airlines to subject the unknowing and trusting flying public to this obvious risk shows the incredible power the airline lobby has over government regulators.

xxx The huge volumes of totally irrelevant ETOPS justification documents, and, extremely complex engine-failure , (1-engine), diversion procedures, published by the FAA, citing deceptive engine-failure statistics, (none of which were necessary before ETOPS), seem to indicate that the FAA, and the airlines, in spite of the increasing number of recent ETOPS certified airliner engine failures, and, in spite of the very uncertain 1 engine flight capabliities of these huge 500,000 pound airliners, continue to believe the ridiculous concept that volumes of ETOPS documents, ETOPS rules, and ETOPS 1 engine over-ocean diversion procedures, can compensate for engine failures on airliners having only 2 engines, (even though these engines may be many years old, and, operate under tremendous stresses and temperature extremes, and, as recent engine-failure events have confirmed, may not be capable of providing sufficient thrust to maintain 1 engine flight).

Page 4 of 10

xxx Therefore, it would seem that these airline executives, and, government regulators, continue to believe that the more written paper documents, and ETOPS rules, they publish, the more unlikely an airliner engine failure will result in an airliner ocean ditching, and, the more ETOPS documents they publish, and, the more complicated 1-engine diversion procedures they create (and, hide behind), the more their asses will be covered should a catastrophic airliner ocean ditching occur after an engine failure.

xxx Of course, this is money-motivated nonsense, and, a money-motivated deception, not only to the flying public, but, apparently, also to themselves.
xxx Regardless of the illusion that a multitude of paper documents, (ETOPS) and, complex
1-engine mid-ocean diversion procedures, can transform an obviously dangerous policy into a safe policy, prevent engine failures, and, eliminate corporate civil and criminal liabilities, many of the recently occurring engine failures, as mentioned above, have actually involved ETOPS certified airliners, regardless of the volumes of irrelevant and deceptive FAA documentation pertaining to the "Probability" of engine failures.

xxx Any rational and realistic person knows that an airliner jet engine, like any other man-made machine, as history has shown, can fail at any time, and, for a multitude of different reasons, and, that paper ETOPS justification documents, regardless of how many, nor, can wishful thinking, prevent these complex, and, highly stressed, airliner engines from failing.
xxx That is why, in the past, more safety conscious airlines and government regulators required that only airliners having 3 or 4 engines, which had the multiple engine redundancy which is necessary for maximum safety when many hours from land, could be used on extended over-ocean passenger flights.


xxx In creating ETOPS, the FAA, and the airlines, relied on sales-motivated assurances from the aircraft manufacturers that these huge 500,000 pound 2-engine airliners were capable of flying long over-ocean distances with only 1 operating engine.

xxx However, there are many important factors conveniently missing from these manufacturer's
1-engine performance figures, and, also missing from other deceptive ETOPS diversion documents.

- SUCH AS - - -
- - - - the fact that the ETOPS 1-engine performance figures of these huge airliners assumes that all aircraft engines, used on extended over-ocean routes, are equal in performance capabilities, which they are not, as every individual engine has its own widely variable performance capability, based on the age of the engine, how many hours the engine has flown since new, or, since remanufactured, and other factors.
- - - - the fact that the manufacturers 1-engine flight testing was done under controlled flight conditions, and, as stated above, used new engines, and, could not have taken into consideration all the possible additional and unanticipated aircraft damage that an explosive and uncontained engine failure could create, and, which could result in these huge 500,000 pound airliners being unable to maintain altitude/flight with only 1 engine, (which was exactly what occurred on Hawaii-bound United Airlines Flight #1175, a 2-engine Boeing 777, which, after an explosive engine failure, which caused other unanticipated aircraft damage and aerodynamic problems, was unable to maintain altitude with the insufficient power provided by the only remaining operating engine, and, which nearly caused this airliner to ditch into the Pacific Ocean.
xxx Fortunately, UAL Flt. #1175 was not mid-ocean, and, was only 30 minutes from Honolulu when the right engine failed, and was able to make a terrifying "single-engine assisted glide" the remaining short distance to the Honolulu Airport.
xxx In an interview, following this engine failure event, (see: Youtube video "Capt. Behnam UAL #1175 Fan Blade Out Event INTERVIEW"), the Captain of UAL flt. #1175, Mr. Christopher Behnam, stated (at the 00:49:00 point of the interview) "If the engine had failed only a few minutes earlier, when we were farther away from Honolulu, we would have had to ditch the airplane into the ocean."
xxx This incident completely obliterates the entire ETOPS sham.
xxx This was an extremely close-call which almost killed 381 innocent passengers.
xxx (see: above UAL Flight #1175 link for details on this incident.)
xxx Coming so incredibly close to death was not exactly what 381 passengers expected on their way to a vacation in Paradise.

- - - - the fact that after an engine failure, the aircraft, because of the loss of sufficient engine thrust needed for high-altitude flight, would have to descend, from the clear air at higher altitudes, down into possible unforecast and severe weather conditions, which could be present at lower altitudes, such as severe turbulence, icing conditions, thunderstorms, heavy rain, and, hail, (which could severely damage the only operating engine), or, the crippled aircraft could encounter these severe weather conditions while enroute during a long 5-6 hour 1-engine low altitude diversion flight.

- - - - the fact that the loss of 1 engine-driven generator would result in the reduction of available electrical energy to vital equipment, such as the di-icing equipment, weather avoidance radar, complex navigation and communication systems, landing and anti-collision lights, fuel heaters and pumps, cabin environmental systems, and, many other things.

** (After the loss of one engine and its electrical generator, pilots, while struggling with the considerable aerodynamic and other control problems associated with the engine failures, must also react very quickly to shut down some of the electrical systems, mentioned above, in order to avoid extreme electrical over-load damage, and possible failure, of the generator on the only remaining engine.)

- - - - the fact that, after the failure of 1 engine, the airliner would lose 1 engine-driven hydraulic pump, needed for the operation of the landing gear/ flaps/slats/speed-brakes/thrust reversers, and, other important systems.

- - - - the fact that the ETOPS diversion rules are based on the time it would take for a 2-engine airliner, operating with only 1 engine, to reach a diversion airport.
xxx However, the ETOPS 3-4-5, and now 6 hour maximum over-ocean diversion time limits, (already dangerously long times for passenger filled airliners to be operating mid-ocean with only
1 engine)
, completely ignores the possibility of unforcast headwinds, which would significantly increase the time required to reach a far away diversion airport, well beyond the 3-4-5, and now
6 hour limit - - which, in addition to the aforementioned danger, could seriously deplete the fuel supply (Jet engines use considerably more fuel at lower altitudes).

- - - - the possibility that some unforseen and/or unanticipated circumstances may develop at a remote and isolated mid-Pacific diversion airport, while a dis-abled airliner is enroute, such as runway closures or obstrucions, dense fog, or, many other possibilities which could prevent a landing upon arrival, and, when possibly low on fuel, and, many miles and many over-ocean hours away from, a different diversion airport.

- - - - and, of course, the possibility that the only remaining, and, now overworked, engine, may also fail during a long diversion flight, which would result a passenger filled airliner ditching into the ocean. .

xxx That is why, in the past, in order to provide for any of these possible critical situations, and, because there are so many other unforeseen and unanticipated problems which could befall an already crippled airliner, and, in order to provide the maximum possible safety and engine redundancy for airline passengers and crews on extended over-ocean flights, previous federal regulations required that only airliners having 3 or 4 engines, which could more easily cope with with engine failure(s), or, other unanticipated problems, as described above, could be used on these extended trans-oceanic passenger flights.

***We all know that there is a certain amount of unavoidable risk involved in any sort of travel, but, I believe it is unconscionable for the airlines to intentionally, and, knowingly, increase the risk to their passengers and crews, in order to save money.

***ETOPS is, in my opinion, a government/airline ass-covering program intended to confuse and deceive the public.

***The undeniable fact is that, no matter how big a pile of deceptive and confusing ETOPS BS documents are displayed to the aviation community, none of them have any actual and useful affect on a disabled airliner, while in flight, nor, can any ETOPS rules and procedures substitute for the extra safety that additional engines can provide to a passenger filled airliner, all alone in the middle of the enormous Pacific Ocean.

***In fact, the existance of the ETOPS Program, in itself, proves the danger of 2-engine over-ocean airline flights.

xxx I believe that the only practical and useful value of these ETOPS justification documents is that they do provide some extra toilet paper for these profit-obsessed airline executives and government regulators.

xxx In my opinion, ETOPS is, and, has been, a constantly increasing danger to the unknowing, unsuspecting, and trusting flying public, which requires a thorough and objective investigation and re-evaluation by the NTSB, and, by the FAA, before a disastrous airliner ocean ditching occurs, which would certainly kill hundreds of unsuspecting and innocent passengers, including the many children and infants aboard these airliners).

Page 5 of 10

xxx NOTE - - British trans-Atlantic oceanliners operated for many-many years in total compliance with an obviously insane British maritime regulation which allowed these large passenger ships, contrary to obvious common sense, to sail without the sufficient number of lifeboats necessary to accommodate the total number of passengers which may be aboard these liners.

xxx The executives of the White Star Line, and, the British government regulators, for economic reasons, or, maybe because they were just plain stupid, ignored this obviously dangerous situation for a long time.

xxx However, after getting away with allowing oceanliners to sail without sufficient lifeboats, for many-many years, without incident, their luck finally ran out, as, one cold night, the Titanic, on its maiden voyage from England to New York, had an unexpected encounter with an iceberg.

xxx The result is history.

xxx Ignoring obvious - common sense - safety issues, by the White Star Line, put the White Star Line out of business, and, resulted in the deaths of over 1500 innocent passengers and crew members, who lost their lives because they put their faith in incompentant and/or corrupt government officials and ocean liner company executives.

xxx Can anyone see the parallels here ? ? ?

xxx Events like this, including the creation of ETOPS, teach us that we must think and fend for ourselves, as government regulators, and, corporate "Big-shots", may not be as smart as some people think they are.

xxx History has shown us, that, sooner or later, ignoring of obvious and dangerous safety issues ultimately results in catastropic accidents, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of people.

xxx NOTE for airline executives and government regulators - After the sinking of the Titanic, offical inquires were held as to why there were not enough lifeboats. These inquires resulted in a disgusting "finger-pointing" match between the executives of The White Star Line, the British government regulators, and the officers of the Titanic, each one trying to avoid responsibility by blaming the others for this catastrophic event.


***Throughout the history of commercial airline operations, the FAA, the NTSB, and, the airlines, have have made extraordinary efforts, regardless of cost, to improve the safety of airline travel.

***However, the current money-saving policy of reducing the number of airliner engines, on extended over-ocean flights, from the previous 3 or 4 engine requirement, down to now only
2 engines, may be the first time, in the history of commercial airline operations, that these federal agencies and airline companys have actually and intentionally reduced the safety of airline passengers and crews in order to reduce their operating costs and increase profits.

***(In order to justify reduction of safety standards, airline executives may believe that "Cost-Cutting" allows them to lower airfares, and, that passengers would accept this reduction in their safety in order to benefit from this airfare savings.
**But, it is my opinion that airline passengers, in order to increase their safety and the safety of their families, and, if made aware of the danger involved in extended over-ocean flights in airliners having only 2 engines, would be willing to pay more for the extra safety, or, would simply decide whether or not to take this additional risk, in order to save money on airline tickets).
**That is the purpose of this AIRLINESAFETY blog.

*** (UPDATE - Because of the success of the Facebook post, (before cancellation), which revealed the enormous public interest in this subject, and, because this safety information is being intentionally withheld from the flying public, with the assistance of Facebook, X, and, Instagram, the information in this web blog, concerning the danger of long-haul over-ocean passenger flights using airliners having only 2 engines, along with other relevant aviation information, is being included in a new book which is being prepared, by Al Rioni Enterprises, for future sale to the public on, Barnes & Noble, and, many bookstores ----- Book title - AIRLINESAFETYINFO --- ISBN #978-0-9748065-1-8)


xxx For those of us old enough to remember, this frenzy toward the use of 2-engine airliners is a direct result of the false belief, in the 1970's, and 1980's, that the world's oil supply was running out.

xxx (During that panic, we can also recall the long lines at gas stations, the torturous, and strictly enforced, 55 MPH speed limit on Interstate Highways, the rush to buy wood-burning stoves to heat our homes, and, the desperate search for other alternate sources of energy).

xxx However, this hasty switch to 2-engine airliners, supposedly, in order to conserve the dwindling oil supply, has proven to be unnecessary, as there are now more known oil reserves on/under the Earth than ever before.

xxx The switch to 2-engine airliners was justified by this false belief that the world's oil supply was running out, and, therefore, this switch to fuel-saving 2-engine airliners, was, at that time, not justified by the price of the jet fuel, but, instead, was justified by the fear that the world's oil supply would soon be gone.

xxx Because there is now plenty of oil, and oil reserves, and, because the newest "High-tech" jet engines use much less fuel than earlier jet engines, the continued use of these dangerous
2-engine airliners on long over-ocean flights, can no longer be justified by the fear of impending oil depletion, and, is now motivated solely by the profit motivated "GREED" of airline executives.

xxx (Actually, with the incredible increase in the fuel efficiency of modern state-of-the-art jet engines, such as the GEnx 2867, a 3 or 4 engine airliner, using these high-tech new engines, would probably use the same, or, even less fuel, than a 2-engine airliner of 20 or 30 years ago).

xxx Once these greedy airline executives, along with their penny-pinching accountants, seeking increased profits for their stockholders, and, increased performance bonuses for themselves, tasted and savored the addictive fuel-saving/money-saving abilities of 2-engine airliners, the frenzy was on to acquire more and more of these 2-engine airliners, and, while counting their money, to collectively pretend they were unaware of the dangers they were subjecting their passengers and crews to, on extended over-ocean flights.

xxx But, unfortunatly for the flying public, this "Money lusting", cost-saving, and, the continuing acquisition and glorification of more and more 2-engine airliners, such as the 2-engine Boeing 787 "Dreamliner", and Airbus 2-engine airliners, seems to be irreversible, regardless of the obvious dangers of these 2-engine airliner over-ocean flights.

xxx Considering the many recent airliner engine-failures, and, "Close-call" airliner ocean ditchings, which have occurred using these very large 2-engine airliners, and, because of their very uncertain and proven to be unreliable single-engine flight capabilities after the failure of 1 engine - see: ( see: UAL 1175 Engine-failure Incident), it is obvious that this cost-cutting airline policy switch from 4-engine airliners, to very large airliners having only 2 engines, which carry 400 - 500 innocent, trusting, and, unknowing passengers, on extended over-ocean flights, does not provide the adequate safety margins previously required by federal regulations for these extended over-ocean passenger flights.

xxx In my opinion, these many recently reported airliner engine failures confirm that this obviously irresponsible and dangerous decision to use 2-engine airliners, on extended over-ocean passenger flights, is a valid airline safety issue which must be addressed before, not after, another catastrophic airliner ocean ditching occurs, which would certainly kill many hundreds of innocent passengers.

xxx However, I don't believe this safety issue will ever be publicly debated, or, even openly discussed, because officials at the NTSB, the FAA, the airlines, and, (sadly), even the pilots, know that the statements made in this report are indisputable, and, have no credible counter-arguments.

Page 6 of 10

xxx This is because, considering the enormous financial committment the airlines have made, in purchasing many hundreds of 2-engine Airbus and Boeing airliners, which are now being used on extended over-ocean passenger flights, it would appear that changing this current committment of using 2-engine airliners, on these long over-ocean flights, back to 3 or 4 engine airliners, would be an almost insurmountable task for the airlines.

xxx Therefore, the large number of recently reported airliner engine failures has placed the airline industry in the proverbial situation of being between a rock and a hard place, for which there seems to be no solution, except to continue with this dangerous policy of using airliners having only 2 engines on extended over-ocean flights, continue to hide this danger from the flying public, continue to "Whistle past the graveyard", and, continue to just "Hope and pray" that a catastrophic airliner ditching, which would certainly kill hundreds of innocent passengers and crew members, will not occur after a mid-ocean engine failure.

xxx Is this any way to run an airline ? ?


xxx For those dillusional people who still have "Complete confidence" in the reliability of airliner engines - see below - - -

NOTE -- Aug. 12, 2023 - Pratt & Whitney has announced an emergency inspection of 1,200 PW 1100G jet engines due to microscopic cracks, causing operational disruptions for airlines worldwide.
xxx This engine issue has significant impacts on airlines currently using this engine, including Jet Blue, Spirit, and, also, Hawaiian Airlines, which uses these engines on its 2-engine Airbus airliners on the 2500 mile over-ocean flights from the US to Hawaii.

xxx September 1, 2023 - The European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) has discovered that a London-based company, AOG Technics, allegedly provided "Uncertified/counterfeit" parts for the repair of aircraft engines used in many Airbus and Boeing jets, according to a report by Bloomberg.
xxx London-based AOG Technics "Forged numerous" Authorised Release Certificates for components of the CFM56 high bypass turbofan, according to the European Union Aviation Safety Agency.
xxx The CFM56 powers many Airbus and Boeing aircraft including variants of the narrowbody Boeing 737, Airbus 320 airliners.

xxx Over 30,000 CFM56 engines have been built over its lengthy service life.
xxx It's unclear exactly how many of these aircraft engines have been illegally affected/infected with "Uncertified" parts.
xxx UPDATE -December 7 2023 - The founder and director of AOG Technics, Mr. Jose Alejandro Zamora Yrala, was arrested by the UK Serious Fraud Office (SFO) for supplying these uncertified/counterfeit parts for use on airliner jet engines.

xxx September 3, 2023- - Boeing 777 Engine Defect: FAA Proposes GE90 Airworthiness Directive - - xxx General Electric's GE90 engine may be grounded in the US due to an iron inclusion defect that could cause uncontained debris release and damage to the engine.
xxx This GE GE90 engine may be the subject of a new Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) rule, potentially grounding any Boeing 777s powered by this turbofan engine in the United States.
xxx Similar powdered metal defects have affected other engine programs, including CFM International's Leap, and, Pratt & Whitney's PW1100G engines, as described above.

xxx September 11, 2023 - - Wizz Air has been forced to ground some of its planes and warned it would run fewer flights over Christmas after faults were uncovered in engines used by Airbus.
xxx Aerospace supplier RTX informed Wizz Air that it had detected issues with a certain engine manufactured by US aviation giant Pratt & Whitney.
xxx This engine is used in hundreds of Airbus SE A320neo aircraft and will see hundreds of planes grounded across the globe.
xxx RTX estimates that around 600 to 700 engines will have to be removed.

***The shocking information, concerning the shoddy workmanship which caused the door/plug to separate from an Alaska Airlines Boeing 737 Max, on January 5 2024, is further proof that the quality of construction and maintainence of commercial airliners, and, their engines, is far from guaranteed.

xxx This kind of uncertainty, as to the reliability of airliners and their engines, and, many other factors, in addition to basic common sense, are why, in the past, before ETOPS, commercial airliners, carrying hundreds of passengers on extended over-ocean flights, were required to have multiple engine and systems redundancy.

***NOTE (As of March 2023): Averaged over the last eight months, American Airlines has had planes experience three engine failures per month - far more than any other domestic airline.
***During that eight-month period, FAA records showed American had 23 failures, Delta had 17, United 15, US Airways 10, Continental 10, Southwest 7, and Northwest 7.
***Fortunately for the passengers and crews, these disabled airliners were close to a suitable airport, and were not mid-ocean, and were not hundreds of miles and many hours from land, when these engine failures occurred. .


***Because of the many recent airliner engine failures, and because I believe it is just a matter of time before another potentially catastrophic engine failure occurs when one of these 2-engine airliners is mid-ocean, and, several hours and miles from land, I feel that the time has come for an open discussion, in a public forum, including during NTSB, and/or, congressional investigations/hearings, concerning the "Cost vs. risk" factors involved in the switch from using 4-engine airliners to 2 engines airliners on extended over-ocean crossings.

***Because of the frequency of these recent engine failures, we have to wonder how many unreported airliner engine failures and close-calls have occurred, which, at the "Request" of the airlines, have "Escaped" media coverage.

xxx For only a parcial list of the many other recent airliner engine failures, and, for some peculiar "Official Explanations" for over-ocean crashes of 2-engne airliners - see: "Appendix A" at the end of this page.

xxx Fortunately, most of these many recently reported airliner engine failures occurred when these airliners were over, or, very close to land, and, therefore, were able to limp, with only 1 engine running, to a close-by airport.

xxx Those aboard these disabled airliners were lucky these engine-failures did not occur when these airliners were isolated and all alone, in the middle of the ocean, and several miles and several hours from land.

Page 7 of 10


xxx Because, in the past, there have been airliner ocean-ditchings on the long 2500 mile over-ocean flights from the US mainland to Hawaii, this dangerous 2-engine airliner policy is particularly apparent on these very long over-ocean flights to the Hawaiian Islands, which, (Being 2500 miles from the US West Coast), are much farther out to sea than many visitors are aware of, as these tropical islands are located near the middle of the enormous Pacific Ocean, and, are the most remotely located and isolated land masses on Earth.
xxx This 2500 mile over-ocean distance from the US West Coast to the Hawaiian Islands is the same distance as the entire width of the continental United States from New York to Los Angeles.


xxx (On January 5th 2024, an Alaska Airlines 2-engine Boeing 737 Max, soon after departing Portland Oregon, because of shoddy construction and maintainence, lost a side door/plug, resulting in an explosive cabin de-pressurization at 16000 feet, and, had to return to Portland.
xxx Although this emergency did not involve an engine failure, the fact that Alaska Airlines immediately removed this airliner from ETOPS flights to Hawaii, shows that Alaska Airlines knows, full well, how vulnerable these 2-engine airliners are, when isolated, and, all alone in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.
xxx This extreme vulnerability of airliners, on extended over-ocean flights, is why, in the past, before ETOPS, every precaution and safety measure, including multiple engine redundancy, was incorporated into the operation of these long-haul over-water flights, in order to make them as safe as possible, and, is why Alaska Airlines immediately removed this airliner from ETOPS operations to Hawaii).


xxx NOTE: If an engine failure should occur on an airliner, having only 2 engines, at the mid-point of the 2500 mile over-ocean flight from the US mainland to Hawaii, (1250 miles from the nearest shoreline), and, traveling at the reduced single-engine airspeed of only 250 knots, it would take this disabled airliner, filled with passengers, and, operating with only 1 engine, close to 6 over-ocean hours to reach either Hawaii or the US west coast.

xxx This would certainly be the longest and most terrifing 6 hours the passengers and crew members have ever experienced.

xxx This is why, before succumbing to "Pressure" from the airline lobby, the FAA always required the airlines to use 3 or 4 engine airliners on these long over-ocean Hawaiian flights, in order that these passenger filled airliners had sufficient engine redundancy, in case of engine-failure(s), when mid-ocean.

xxx We can only imagine the incredible apprehension, guilt, and, fear of the captains of these
2-engine airliners, (who, unlike airline executives and government regulators sitting safely in their offices and hiding behind ETOPS), these captains bear the ultimate responsibility for the lives of the 400-500 passengers and crew members aboard their aircraft, and, of course, their own lives.

xxx In past days, pilots had the professional "Piece of mind", and pride in their jobs, and were willing to accept this awesome responsibility because they knew that every safety measure and precaution, regardless of cost, had been taken by the airlines, and, by the government agencies, to obtain the maximum safety humanly possible on these long over-ocean passenger flights.

xxx However, now, since the money saving ETOPS Program was created, these captains, because of airline cost-cutting measures (ETOPS), are forced to live with the realization, and, must accept the responsibility, for any adverse events which may occur on these 2-engine extended over-ocean flights, knowing that there are several hours of flight that, should an engine fail during this critical time period, that the ability of a 500,000 pound passenger-filled airliner, flying with only 1 operating engine, (at the much reduced single-engine speed), for the up to 5-6 long hours which may be necessary to reach the closest land, is now, after ETOPS, very uncertain, and, that the possibility of having to ditch this passenger filled airliner into the ocean, after an engine failure, is certainly present and always weighing heavily on the minds of these captains during these extended over-ocean flights.

xxx The fact that these airlines would put their captains in the position of having to knowingly endanger their own lives, and, the lives of their passengers and fellow crew members, in order to keep their jobs, is further proof of the cold-blooded callousness, and, profit motivated greed of these airline executives.

xxx I am a former airline pilot, and, I don't believe that I, nor, any other pilot of my generation, could tolerate this enormous guilt, caused by this obvious betrayal of my trusting passengers.

xxx (Things have certainly changed from the time when pilots were not so wimpy as they are today, did not live in constant fear of losing their jobs, and, had the stones, and, the self-respect, as extremely skilled and highly trained professionals, to challenge the mindless money-obsessed bureaucrats who make life and death decisions on critical aviation safety issues).

United Airlines Flight #328 - Denver - Honolulu


xxx As stated above, this recent policy change, from 4 to 2-engine airliners, on extended over-water flights, was prohibited by more knowledgable and responsible former government regulators of the past.


Also, Consider This Recent Engine-failure Event

xxx On December 29th 2022, United Airlines Flight #839, a 2-engine Boeing 787 “Dreamliner”, carrying over 300 passengers, enroute from Los Angeles to Sydney Australia, a non-stop over-water trans-Pacific flight of almost 8000 miles, experienced an engine failure in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, and, because of the incredible danger of 1 engine mid-Pacific flight, was forced to divert, with only this 1 operating engine, to the nearest airport, which was 1000 miles away, on the tiny Island of Pago Pago, in American Samoa.

xxxThe Pago Pago diverson, as described above and below, is a classic example of a near-disaster, resulting from the ETOPS 2-engine over-ocean Program.

xxx This airplane with 300 passengers on board, had to fly with only 1-engine, 1000 miles across open-ocean, at night, from the point of the engine failure, before finally making it to Pago Pago (see: below pic).

Pago Pago diversion - UAL Flt#839 - Los Angeles - Sydney

xxx For the FAA, and, for the airlines, to allow this situation to exist, where the lives of 300 passengers, including children and infants, were totally dependent, flying at night, for over 1000 over-ocean miles, through uncertain weather conditions, with only 1 operating engine, of unknown age and flight hours, is, in my opinion, an indication of how far down the scale of decency, and, how far down the scale of concern for airline passenger and crew safety, the FAA has sunken to, in order to "Accommodate" the money and profit-obsessed airlines, and, their powerful lobby.

Page 8 of 10

xxx At the present time, when there have been so many recently reported airliner engine-failures, the possibility certainly existed, during this 1000 mile diversion flight to Pago Pago, for the failure of the only remaining, and, now overworked, engine, and, for other unforseen problems which could befall a large airliner operating for extended over-ocean distances with only 1 engine, and, which could easily have resulted in the unthinkable ditching of this passenger filled airplane into the middle of the Pacific Ocean.

xxx Because of this unconscionable reduction of over-ocean safety standards, the margin of safety, previously required on extended trans-oceanic passenger flights, was non-existant, as this huge passenger-filled airliner, was flying, with only 1 operating engine, through the darkness of night, on the very edge of disaster, with the lives of the passengers and crew hanging by the slenderest of threads, totally dependent, for 1000 over-ocean miles, on the continued operation of this now overworked engine, of unknown age and flight hours, with absolutely no margin of safety as was previously required on long over-ocean passenger flights.

xxx To put the flying public, including children and infants, into this unbelievably dangerous and potentially catastrophic situation, which occurred on UAL Flight #839, would have been unheard of under previous FAA Administrations.

xxx During the flight attendants precautionary passenger briefing on ditching procedures, which was certainly given during this 1-engine/1000 mile over-ocean diversion flight to Pago Pago, we can all imagine the obvious passenger terror, during this emergency briefing, while being instructed on how to put on their life vests, and, reminded of the location of the life rafts and emergency exits, and, of the necessity of staying calm when evacuating the sinking aircraft, along with 300+ other passengers, most of whom would certainly be in a state of intense panic.

xxx We can only imagine what it might have felt like when realizing how close they were to their lives suddenly coming to a horrific end in the middle of the enormous Pacific Ocean.

xxx This mid-ocean engine failure and diversion, in my opinion, transformed what was previously considered to be a "Dreamliner" into a "Nightmare-liner".

xxx During that long and terrifying 1000 mile -- 1-engine - night-time -- over-ocean diversion flight to Pago Pago, all those aboard this disabled airliner, including passengers and crew, certainly had their ears finely tuned to the sound of the only remaining engine, and, finely tuned to any real or imagined peculiar noises coming from this engine, realizing the catastrophic consequences which would result if this engine should also fail -
--- and, if this only remaining engine did fail, what might happen when this gliding, ETOPS created horror-show, carrying 300 passengers, hit the water ? -
--- and, whether or not the airplane would come to rest right-side-up, or, break apart upon impact, which would eject them violently into the ocean ? -
--- and , how long the airplane, or, its pieces, would float before finally sinking ? -
--- and, whether or not they would be able to escape from the possibly up-side-down airplane, and, against the on-rushing ocean ? -
--- and, if they were fortunate enough to escape from the airplane through the inevitable panic, would they be able to locate and care for their children, including infants, and other family members, while in the water, and, in the blackness of night ? -
--- and, if they did not survive the ditching, but, their children did survive, who would care for their children in the future ? -
--- and, if they should be fortunate enough to escape the sinking aircraft, how long would they have to float around in a life raft, or, dangle from their life jackets, with their bodies in the water, before help arrived ? -

2-engine Boeing 767 breaks into pieces when ditching

xxx There can be no doubt that all of these horrifying thoughts were on the minds of the passengers, and, also, among the crew-members, during this long 1-engine - 1000 mile over-ocean night diversion flight to Pago Pago.

xxx Many of these passengers were undoubtedly crying, and - on their knees - praying for their lives, and, for the lives of their families, for 1000 miles of terrifying night time 1-engine over-ocean flight.

xxx No amount of ETOPS bulls...t can justify this extreme level of stress and fear having to be endured by innocent airline passengers.

xxx If this mid-Pacific engine failure had occurred when using a 4-engine airliner, no complicated ETOPS diversion procedures would have been necessary, as there would have been 3 remaining engines to safely carry the aircraft, and, its 300 passengers and crew, to the original destination, or, to any other destination within the fuel range.

PanAm Boeing 707 (Clipper) enroute to Honolulu
Sweet nostalgia

xxx This terrifing and potentially disastrous situation could never have happened with a 3 or 4-engine airliner before the airline lobby got rid of Mr. Helms, and soon thereafter, "Convinced" the new FAA Administrator to allow 2-engine airliner extended over-ocean flights, and, to create the dubious ETOPS Program in order to cover their asses should an ocean ditching occur.

xxx In addition - - Even if a disabled airliner was fortunate enough to make a long over-ocean diversion flight with only 1 operating engine, this fear and extreme terror, experienced by the passengers, who are not prepared nor trained for (as are many aviation professionals) this high level of personal life-threatening danger and stress, lasting for several hours, would, for many, be a life changing, emotionally damaging, and extremely traumatic experience, which they never anticipated nor expected when getting on board this airliner and taking their seats.

xxx In my opinion, by focusing on profits and ignoring this passenger/crew fear/stress factor in deciding to use 2-engine airliners on extended over-water routes, and, relying on sales motivated manufacturer's "reported" extended distance performance capabilities of large 2-engine 500,000 pound airliners, when operating with only 1 engine, the NTSB, the FAA, and, the airlines, are revealing either their high level of stupidity, or, their high level of profit motivated greed, indifference, and, cold-bloodedness, or, all of the above, that they feel regarding their responsibilities to the flying public, and, to the airline employees who work aboard these 2-engine airliners.

Page 9 of 10

xxx During the NTSB investigation into the near-catastrophic ditching of Hawaii-bound United Airlines Flight #1175, as described above, and, in order to draw the attention of the National Transportation & Safety Board (NTSB) and, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), to this very serious airline safety issue, and, after the recent catastrophic engine failures on 2 separate United Airlines 2-engine Boeing 777's enroute to Hawaii, and, after the many other recently reported engine failures, I submitted, in March of 2021, the following 14 page report to the NTSB.
(14 page Report to NTSB.)

xxx A few weeks later, I received a form letter from the NTSB, acknowledging the receipt of this Report, which stated that this information would be forwarded to the FAA for possible Rule Change.

xxx That was my last contact with either the NTSB, nor, the FAA, concerning this serious airline safety issue.

xxx That is the reason for this airline safety "Blog".

xxx Other than this form letter acknowledging receipt of this safety report, 2 years ago, I have not heard from the FAA on this important and indisputable airline safety issue.


xxx I have recently received a letter/e-mail, signed by the Chief Executive Secretary of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), Ms. Shavonne L. Austin, stating, in effect, that the Chairperson of the NTSB, ( Ms. Jennifer Homendy) (Even after the near ocean ditching of United Airlines Flight #1175, and the subsequent NTSB investion), still does not feel it is the responsibility of the NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION & SAFETY BOARD to further investigate this 2-engine airliner over-ocean safety issue and reccommend corrective action to the FAA, but instead, the NTSB seems to be "Passing the buck" by requesting that I bypass the NTSB investigation/reccomendation procedure and submit my concerns directly to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

***As stated above - - - after reading this information, and, if in agreement with its contents, it is my hope and request that anyone planning a long over-ocean airline trip, or, anyone else interested in airline safety, will email the link - - to their congressperson or senator, asking for a federal investigation of the "Risk vs. Benefit" of this critical and dangerous over-ocean airline policy switch to using airliners having only 2 engines on extended over-ocean flights.
***All US Senators and Congresspersons have their email addresses or other messaging methods on their official websites.
***I am hoping that a huge response to this website will persuade these federal representatives to initiate an investigation of this crucial airline safety info.

More ETOPS info-- (FAA 2-engine Over-water Rules)


Page 10 of 10

Lockheed L-1011 Tristar

In my opinion, this would be the ideal aircraft to bring back into
production and equipped with the latest avionics and fuel efficient engines
Wide body/3-engines/2 isle/300-400 passengers/already flight tested - -
Excellent-well-disigned airliner

(The L-1011 was not a financial success for Lockheed because
a long delay in the delivery of its Rolls Royce RB-211 engines
allowed its major competitor (the McDonnell Dougles DC-10)
to make huge sales gains).



--September 24-25 2023 - A chartered Delta Airlines 2-engine Airbus 330, carrying the Pittsburgh Steelers football team, and their families, from Las Vegas to Pittsburgh, after a Sunday night football game, made an emergency landing at the Kansas City Airport, following an engine failure.

--August 29 2023 - 2 different IndiGo Airlines 2-engine Airbus 320neos, using Pratt Whitney engines, had engine failures and had to make emergency landings - India

--August 15 - 2023 - Southwest Airlines 2-engine Boeing 737 - Houston

--April 29 - 2023 - United Airlines - 2-engine Boeing 787 "Dreamliner" - Sydney Australia

--January 3rd 2023 - Delta Airlines 2-engine Boeing 767 - Orlando

--May 1 - 2023 - Israel El Al 2-engine Boeing 787 "Dreamliner" enroute from Tel Aviv to Tokyo

--May 26 - 2023 - KLM 2-engine Boeing 777 - enroute from Bangkok Thailand to Amsterdam, was forced to land at Dubai, because of the failure of 1 of its only 2 engines.

--October 19 2022 - Southwest Airlines 2-engine Boeing 737 - Baltimore -

--Between August 28th and September 5th 2022 (1 week), 2 separate American Airlines 2-engine Boeing 777's, enroute from the US to London, were forced to make emergency landings because of "Mechanical problems"

--On December 23, 2022 - Airlingus 2-engine Airbus A330 - NY/JFK

--December 29th 2022 - United Airlines Flight #839, a 2-engine Boeing 787 "Dreamliner" - mid-Pacific .

--March 23 2023 - Southwest Airlines 2-engine Boeing 737 - Phoenix

--June 5 2023 - United Airlines 2-engine Boeing 777 - San Francisco to Honolulu

--July 3 2023 - American Airlines 2-engine Airbus 321 - Dallas

--July 2 2023 - Frontier Airlines 2-engine Airbus 219 - Phoenix

--October 27 2022 - another American Airlines 2-engine Boeing 777, Flight #908, experienced the failure of the left Rolls Royce engine - Argentina

--November 2 2022 - Delta Airlines Flight #2846, 2-engine Boeing 757 - Albuquerque NM

--October 7th 2022 - United Airlines 2-engine Boeing 787, enroute from London to San Francisco, on an "Over the North Pole" route, diverted to a remote airstrip in extreme Northern Canada after experiencing "Mechanical problems".

--July 21 2022 - American Airlines 2-engine Airbus A319 - Phoenix

--April 2018 - Southwest Airlines - Flight #1380 - 2-engine Boeing 727 - Pennsylvania

--Feb. 2018 - United Airlines Flight #1175 - 2-engine Boeing 777 - approching Hawaii -Feb. 2018

--Feb. 2021 - United Airlines Flight #328 - 2-engine Boeing 777 - Denver

--Dec. 2020 - Japan Airlines - 2-engine Boeing 777 - Okinawa -

--Oct. 2021 - Japan Airlines - 2-engine Boeing 777 - Toyko

--January 2008 - British Airways 2-engine Boeing 777 - London - crash landing after the failure of both of its engines - London

--December 9th 2022 - Southwest Airlines 2-engine - Boeing 737 - Orlando.

--November 8th 2022, a Lufthansa 4-engine Airbus-340, (Flight# LH425) on an over-ocean flight from Boston to Munich, returned to Boston after the failure of the #2 engine. ***(I'm certan the pilots, cabin crew, and passengers, were relieved to have had 3 more operating engines remaining to easily take them back to Boston.)

--December 16 2022 - Delta Airlines 2-engine Airbus A320 - Michigan -

--November 7 2023 - A Southwest Airlines 2- engine Boeing 373 on flight from Oakland CA to Denver after departure, at 6900 feet, declared an emergency, reported right engine failure and requested return to the airport of departure. A couple of minutes later the flight crew requested the emergency trucks to meet them after landing as a precaution.

--November 19 2023 - United Airlines 2-engine Airbus A320 (A320), flight from Newark Liberty International Airport, NJ to Chicago O'Hare International Airport, during climb out of Newark declared an emergency, reported engine number one failure and returned back the airport.

--November 28 2023 - El-Al 2-engine Boeing 787 "Dreamliner" - on a flight from Newark to Tel Aviv was climbing through FL340 when the pilots declared MAYDAY reporting the left engine had failed and would need to dump fuel and divert back for landing at JFK.

--December 15 2023 -- United Airlines flight 551 from EWR to DEN diverted to Wichita (ICT) due to an engine fire, and failure of the right engine.

--December 22 2023 -- a 2-engine Southwest Airlines Boeing 737-800, carrying 122 passengers, was diverted to Atlanta Hartsfield Jackson International Airport (ATL) after the failure of one of its engines. The flight was scheduled from Chicago Midway International Airport (MDW) to Fort Myers Southwest Florida International Airport (RSW).

--January 18 2024 -- an Atlas Air 4-engine Boeing 747 experienced a failure of its #2 engine on take-off from Miami and easily returned to the airport with the 3 remaining engines.

--January 24 2024 -- a 2-engine United Airlines Airbus 321 had a failure of 1 of its Pratt & Whitney GTF engines at 20,000 after take-off from Chicago and returned to Chicago.

(This engine family - Pratt & Whitney's Geared Turbofan (GTF) - has been at the center
of controversy after production defects led to hundreds of aircraft being grounded for
inspections and repairs. The company discovered powdered metal defects in some
turbine disks manufactured between 2015 and 2021).

--January 25 2024 -- a 2-engine American Airlines Airbus 321, enroute from Charlotte NC to Portland had an engine failure and diverted to Minneapolis - fortunately these aircraft were not mid-ocean when these engine failures occurred.

--January 31 2024 -- A Boeing 737-800 operated by United Airlines made an emergency landing in Atlanta on Wednesday after one of its engines shut down inflight on Wednesday.





xxx Because the airlines, and, the airplane manufacturers, have obviously made such a huge financial investment in the production and use of 2-engine airliners on extended over-ocean passenger flights, and, because I believe the media, (which has been proven to be less than completely credible), may be complicit in assisting the airlines, and, the government, in concealing the danger of 2-engine airliner over ocean flights, and, may be assisting the airlines, and, the government, in concealing any resulting over-ocean crashes of 2-engine airliners, which may have been caused by these 2-engine airliners inability to continue flight after engine failure(s), the flimsy, and, seemingly unusually and unlikely, official explanations of the following over-ocean crashes of 2-engine airliners are, in my opinion, worthy of close examination.


--Air France Flight #447 - - 2-engine Airbus-A330 - - Rio to Paris - crashed into the Atlantic Ocean.


xxx The official cause of this Atlantic Ocean crash was determined to be that 2 very experienced and highly trained Air France pilots, having full and ultimate contol of their aircraft, in rainy weather, were unable to compensate for faulty airspeed information being sent to the cockpit instruments.
xxx The reason for the faulty instrument readings was, supposedly, that the heating element in the pistol-sized pitot tube, which reports airspeed, on this 200 million dollar Airbus airliner, was unable to melt the ice that was accumulating on it, (Even though the pitot tube on a primary single-engine student trainer has no trouble melting the ice).

xxx Therefore, according to the "Official explanation", the pilots, because of these faulty instrument readings, were unable to maintain even the most basic wings level/nose level flight attitude, which resulted in these 2 very experienced Air France pilots allowing this completely airworthy airliner to go "wildly out of control" - climbing, descending, steeply banking, etc, which resulted in this airliner ultimatey stalling and diving and crashing into the Atlantic Ocean, which resulted in their own deaths, and, the deaths of over 200 passengers.
xxx (As stated abpve, the official explanation for the faulty airspeed information was that the pitot tube heating element in this 200 million dollar Airbus 330 did not get hot enough to melt the ice that was accumulating - -nonsense.)

xxx As instrument failures are common, even in the unlikely event of an iced-over pitot tube, maintaining control of an airliner, after instrument failures, is certainly taught by Air France in their very sophisticated pilot training simulators.

xxx Actually, instrument failure procedures are taught during even the most basic private pilot instrument flight training.

xxx The official explanation may, in fact, be the actual reason for this Air France Atlantic Ocean crash, but, to me, it seems to be somewhat unlikely that 2 very experienced pilots were unable to exercise the same very basic airmanship qualities that are taught in private pilot instrument training.

xxx So, therefore, because of the airlines huge financial committment in purchasing 2-engine airliners, the question has to be asked - "Was the very unlikely explanation, for the crash of Air France #447, concocted, with media assistance, to cover-up the ocean crash of a 2-engine airliner, after an engine failure ? ? ?.


--Egypt Air flight #990 - - 2-engine Boeing-767 - - New York to Cairo -- crashed into the Atlantic Ocean.


xxx --- The official cause of this Atlantic Ocean crash was determined to be, that, while cruising at high altitude, the co-pilot went crazy, uttered some Arabic curses, and, even though there was plenty of time for the 3 other pilots to overpower him during the long descent from high altitude to sea level, the crazy co-pilot was still able to crash this passenger filled airliner into the Atlantic ocean, killing himself, the other crewmembers, and, all 217 passengers.

xxx To the best of my knowledge, in the history of aviation, never has a reason even close to this reason been used as an official finding for the cause of a major airliner crash.

xxx This determination as to the cause of the crash was vehemently disputed by the family and friends of the co-pilot.

xxx The official explanation may, in fact, be the actual reason for this Egypt Air Atlantic Ocean crash, but, to me, from the very beginning, this explanation has always seemed to be extremely far-fetched and highly unlikely.

xxx So, therefore, because of the airlines huge financial committment in purchasing 2-engine airliners, the question has to be asked - "Was the very unlikely explanation, for the crash of Egypt Air Flight #990, concocted, with media assistance, to cover-up the ocean crash of a 2-engine airliner, after an engine failure ? ? ?.


xxx I want to believe the official explanations for these over-ocean crashes, but, the strange and seemingly unlikely explanations for these over-ocean crashes should make any rational person at least a little curious, and wonder what the actual causes of any of these, and other, mysterious airliner over-ocean crashes may have been.




"Dear Al,

xxx I have read with interest, your position paper regarding long-distance overwater flights using 2-engine aircraft operating under ETOPS rules.

xxx In my opinion, your arguments are reasonable, and, reflective of the realities facing flight crews on extended overwater operations.

xxx There are a few areas of coverage that might be helpful to your dialog with regulatory authorities, specifically, flight deck crew workload during emrg ops, workload resulting from simultaneous or cascading aircraft system failures, failures in comm/nav systems during emrg ops, ground-based systems status at diversion airports, and unavailavbility of one or more diversion airports due to runway conditions and/or obstructions.

xxx Please feel free to use or discard any or all of my commentary as your prefer.

xxx Flight deck crew workload during emrg ops: Engine-out ops on 2-engine aircraft is a significant workload for crew, even in terminal areas of domestic airspace, where diversion airports are ample, and where unavailability of a particular diversion airport simply results in selection of a nearby alternate. Adding in overwater ops to the engine-out workload, where there are limited diversion airports, complicates workload and invites inattention to the full spectrum of aircraft performance parameters necessary to be monitored for safe flight.

xxx Workload resulting from simultaneous or cascading aircraft system failures: Simultaneous and/or cascading system failures do occur, and when they do, the outcome is often fatal to aircraft and occupants. What begins as solely an engine-out condition, where emrg procedures are standardized, simultaneous failure of other aircraft systems, caused by the engine failure(s), such as hydraulics/fly-by-wire control surface systems, comm/nav systems, pressurization systems, can present a workload that exceeds flight deck crew performance capabilities, with possibly fatal consequences.

xxx Ground-based systems status at diversion airports: Availability and service quality of ILS, VOR or NDB facilities at a selected diversion airport is never guaranteed. While in domestic operations, such condition simply results in selection of another nearby alternate airport, in ETOPS ops, the choice of diversion airport may be limited to a single airport. If faciltiies at the selected diversion airport are degraded or unavailable, safe and successful landing may be impossible, resulting in ditching at sea or impact with terrain.

xxx Unavailavbility of one or more diversion airports due to runway conditions and/or obstructions: While many domestic and some international airports have more than one runway, whereby OTS equipment or physical obstruction such as a stuck aircraft on runway merely results in selection of another runway, diversion airports during ETOPS overwater ops do not generally feature more than one runway. If ground facilities are OTS or an obstruction blocks the only runway, landing may not be possible, resulting in selection of another alternate which may be out of endurance range of the aircraft, with predictable ditching at sea or impact with terrain.

xxx Best of luck, Al, in your campaign to bring a safer and more sane approach to extended overwater operations."


Glen xxxxxxxxxxx



The Following Is A List Of Government Officials And Airline Executives Who Have Received Copies Of This NTSB Report, but, In My Opinion, and, For Obvious Political and Financial Reasons, Have Cold-Bloodedly Ignored This Indisputable Passenger Safety Information

--- Ms. Jennifer Homendy - Chairperson - National Transportation & Safety Board (NTSB)

--- US Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) -- Chairperson - Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, & Transportation Safety

--- US Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) -- Co-Chairperson - Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, & Transportation Safety

--- Ms. Tulsi Gabbard -- Former Congresswomen (D-Hawaii)

--- Mr. Ed Bastian - CEO - Delta Airlines

--- Mr. Scott Kirby - CEO - United Airlines

--- Mr. Gary Kelly - Former CEO - Southwest Airlines

--- Mr. Bradley D. Tildon - CEO - Alaska airlines

--- Mr. Peter Ingram - CEO - Hawaiian Airlines

--- + Various Hawaiian Airlines Board Members - Including Board Chairman Mr. Lawrence S. Hershfield

***In my opinion, the government officials, listed above, and others, by desperately trying to ignore this indisputable safety information, are continuing with, what I believe, is the well-known, and widespread, government policy of disregarding the health, safety, and welfare, of the public, in favor of powerful business/monetary interests.


xxx The Blancolirio YouTube Aviation Channel" has published a deceptive and very disappointing report on the above described UAL Pago Pago engine-failure diversion event, in which the publisher, attempts to defend, but, instead, actually exposes the idiocy of ETOPS, by trying to explain the ridiculously complicated ETOPS diversion procedures, including the many charts, distances to far away diversion airports, and, the ridiculous 3-hour flight rings required under ETOPS mid-ocean diversion operations, and, by doing so, instead of defending ETOPS, actually discredits these very dangerous and complicated ETOPS mid-ocean engine failure procedures, none of which were necessary before the switch from 4-engine to 2-engine over-ocean flights, and, before ETOPS was created.

xxx Also, in this Blancolario Channel YouTube video, concerning UAL #839, the publisher completely ignores the terror experienced by the passengers, and, instead, jokes about how this terrifing near-disaster resulted in the passengers "enjoying drinks on the Beach at Pago Pago", (sic).

xxxThis disgraceful statement, has, in my opinion, destroyed the Blancolirio Channel's sincerity and credibility.

xxx In this Blancolario Channel YouTube video, the publisher attempts to defend ETOPS, but, after clearly expressing, at least 3 times, his knowledge of the danger of 2-engine airliner over-ocean flights, and, after clearly expressing his own personal anxiety at the prospect of being mid-ocean with only 1 engine, the publisher, at the end of this video, ironically, contradicts his own statements, regarding his fear of 1-engine over-ocean flights, by telling his YouTube followers that the 2-engine extended over-ocean ETOPS engine-failure program is "Safe" for over-ocean passenger flights.

xxx Therefore, the publisher betrays and confuses the followers of his YouTube Channel by telling them that something that he, himself, fears, is, nevertheless, safe.

xxx This Blancolirio Video is a classic example of a pilot kissing the asses of the powerful airline industry, in order to keep his job, and, be a "team-player", and, has, (sadly), in my opinion, destroyed the credibility of the Blancolirio Channel.

xxx End