Watched this video twice, paying full attention both times.

I'm intentionally not going to say much, but take a look/listen and tell me if you also question ETOPS after seeing this.

Like everything in aviation, ETOPS is a risk assessment.

I don't think anything in that video changes the actual risk data...in fact, if anything, it puts data in the validation column.

Challenging set of circumstances for the crew, and outstanding performance by them (including the jumper) based on the Capt's description, but nothing to shake the foundation of ETOPS in my opinion.

ETOPS actually stands for "Engines Turn Or People Swim". My best friend just retired from UAL as a B777 Captain. Many years ago on his first over water trip as a B767FO, he showed up with an extra garment bag. Knowing in advance that his IOE Captain was an old friend and squadron mate of his AA 727 Captain dad, as he got unpacked and set up in the cockpit, he pulled out his fathers old orange immersion suit. The Captain saw it, and in a dead pan voice asked if he did not have any faith in the engines? They all had a good laugh.

On a more serious note, the numbers clearly show it's very safe.

It sure seemed to me that if they had been another 100 miles out, they would have ended up in the drink.

ETOPS is all fine and dandy if you're talking about the controlled rollback and shutdown of a fully intact and free-wheeling engine.  Once things start acting all explodey like, the theory (and let's be honest, that's what ETOPS is) starts to fall apart (ironically).  We've been lucky so far.  Yes, for a really long time.

That's certainly possible.

Nothing about ETOPS says you're never, ever gonna lose a twin-engined airliner in the drink.

The same way there was never the expectation that you're never going to lose a 3- or 4-engine one due to cascading failures or multiple engine failures.



Again, if you look at the number of perfectly safe pond crossings since ETOPS began, it pretty clearly supports the theory.