[WalterBright]

> A reminder that aviation regulations are written in blood.

It's enormously expensive for an airframe manufacturer to deal with the fallout of a crash.

There aren't any engineers in an airframe manufacturer willing to sign off on a faulty design. Some good engineers are so worried about that they get shifted to working on conceptual projects.

I took a loooong time for Boeing to convince the FAA that a twin engine jet was safer than a 4 engine for ocean crossings.

[xethos]

> took a loooong time for Boeing to convince the FAA that a twin engine jet was safer than a 4 engine for ocean crossings

I don't believe they convinced the FAA twin is safer, just that it meets the necessary safety margins. Airlines want them to meet that regulation for fuel efficiency, but I'd want a source that they're actually safe-er, instead of simply safe enough

[WalterBright]

Boeing proved it safer. The reason is the increased complexity of more engines increased the risk of a major problem.

My source is I was told this by the engineers who where involved.

[xethos]

Now see, the worst part is, I believe you. Your username pops up frequently enough, and is recognizable enough, that I consider you a reasonable, thoughtful person. And the rationale makes sense - juggling multiple engines is extremely complex

But now way in hell can I, in good conscience, repeat that without a source

[WalterBright]

> But now way in hell can I, in good conscience, repeat that without a source

googling "why are twin engine jets safer than quad engine jets?" should provide the needed information.

[thesumofall]

Not necessarily safer but safe enough. A modern 4 engine jet should still be safer than the 2 engine equivalent