March 8, 2021

To: The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)

Mr. Dan Bower, NTSB Lead Investigator - UAL #328 Incident

490 L'Enfant Plaza - Washington, DC 20024

From: Al Rioni - Concerned Pilot/Citizen ******* email -

This Report Describes the Obvious Dangers of the Recently Enacted and Reckless Cost-Cutting Airline Policy of Operating Airliners, Having Only 2 Engines, On Extended Overwater Flights - and the Resulting Compromising of Air Safety.

-- This message concerns UAL Flt. #328 and many other engine-failure incidents.

**The following information includes my opinions of the issues described.

-- Please review and enter this document into evidence at the NTSB hearing and/or any investigations concerning the United Airlines Flight #328 2-engine Boeing 777 engine fan-blade failure which occurred near Denver Colorado on or about February 20, 2021, in addition to any subsequent engine failure investigations you may conduct.

-- After evaluating the many issues described herein, please issue any recommendations to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), for possible FAA Rule changes, as the NTSB Members deem appropriate, as is the designated mission of the NTSB.
Copyright 2021 - by Al Rioni - Pilot (ATP)

Page 1 of 14

**My name is Al Rioni. - - I live in Las Vegas

**I am a retired airline/corporate 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 20 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. **Therefore, I feel I am qualified and entitled to express the following opinions.

**To some airline officials, to the FAA, to the NTSB, and to other government regulators, this is going to be a very controversial and unwelcome essay, concerning the obvious dangers, as recent engine failure events confirm, of the recently amended policy of allowing airliners, having only 2 engines, to carry passengers on extended over-ocean routes, such as the 2500 mile over-ocean flight between the US mainland and Hawaii, and, on other extended over-water routes, when 4-engine airliners were always required on these extended over-ocean flights in the past.

**Because I believe that this safety issue is of vital importance to the flying public, 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, for their consideration.
**I have also spent a considerable amount of my own resources in obtaining the websites, domains, and internet hosting services.
**I believe that I must make whatever effort is required to help to prevent an airline disaster, which, I believe, is waiting to happen.

**Relying on knowledge obtained over a lifetime, I have prepared this document to explain, in detail, the many reasons why I believe it is unwise, and grossly irresponsible for airlines, in order to cut fuel and other costs, to operate, and, for federal regulators to allow, airliners, having only 2 engines, to transport hundreds of passengers, on long over-ocean flights, particularly flights from the continental US to the Hawaiian Islands.
** As recent engine failures confirm, these 2-engine airliners lack sufficient engine redundancy necessary for extended over-ocean flights.
* These recent engine failures on 2-engine airliners bound for Hawaii have prompted this message.
* This document will be published and made available to various media.

**Having invested billions of dollars in the purchase of these 2-engine airliners, I don't expect the airlines to change this 2-engine over-ocean policy based on any information I may submit.

**Instead, the purpose of these messages is to merely educate the flying public of these circumstances, either by publishing this blog, or, hopefully through public NTSB hearings, where all interested parties can express their views on this subject, so the flying public, and all other interested citizens, can formulate their own conclusions regarding this important airline safety issue.

**For lack of any other logical reasons for this obviously dangerous 2-engine policy, I regret saying that I believe that improper accommodations may have been made, for economic and/or political reasons, by the FAA, and the NTSB, to various airlines and aircraft manufacturers, which have jeopardized airline passenger safety.

**I submit this report to the NTSB for consideration during the hearings and/or investigations concerning the circumstances involving the engine fan-blade failure on United Airlines Flt. #328, which occurred on February 20th 2021, soon after take-off, on a flight from Denver to Honolulu, and especially after United Airlines Flight #1175, another Hawaii-bound flight, the shocking circumstances of which will be described later in this document, and, after many other recent engine failures.

Page 2 of 14

**Because UAL Flt. #328 and UAL Flt. #1175 had only 2 engines, and because of the very uncertain single-engine flight capabilities of these large 2-engine airliners, (To be described later), the failure of the 1 engine could have resulted in catastrophic ocean ditchings had these engine failures occurred when these aircraft were mid-ocean, and when they were a thousand miles, or more, from land, and, from an airport.


**The information in this report was originally prepared for copyright and publication following the 2019 engine failure incident involving a 2-engine Southwest Airlines Boeing 737, which experienced an uncontained engine failure over Pennsylvania. (Actual Copyright Issued 2021)

(An uncontained engine failure is when the outer engine cover (Nacelle) fails to contain any engine parts which may be expelled from the engine during a catastrophic or explosive engine failure).

**Fortunately, the above mentioned Southwest Airlines flight landed safely, with only 1 engine running, at the Philadelphia International Airport, which was only a short distance from the point of the engine failure, and, therefore, did not require extended single-engine flight. **Sadly, 1 passenger aboard the airplane perished.


** Because of the reliability and high-quality of modern aircraft engines, and because there have been no recently reported catastrophic nor fatal events caused by engine failures on long over-water flights, I have been reluctant to express my opinions concerning these overwater flights using aircraft having only 2 engines, and, have, ironically, gambled on the laws of probability, myself, and have nervously made trips from the US mainland to Hawaii, as a passenger, in 2-engine airliners.

**But, we must remember that throughout the history of commercial aviation, major airline disasters have often occurred after many years and many uneventful flights involving airliners operated with unknown or ignored safety vulnerabilities.

**Because of the many recent engine failures, and, although reluctant, I feel it is now necessary for an open discussion, in a public forum, including during NTSB investigations/hearings, concerning the "cost vs. risk" factors involved in extended over-ocean crossings using airliners having only 2 engines, and, as to why the FAA now allows these flights when 4-engine airplanes were always used in the past, in order for these aircraft to have multiple engine redundancy when mid-ocean.


**I express these opinions and conclusions knowing full well the considerable monetary commitment the airlines have made to using airliners having only 2 engines on extended over-ocean routes, to Hawaii, and other places, and the difficulty and expense required to replace these airplanes.

**However, I believe that these airline executives, and airplane manufacturers, should have more thoroughly researched and considered the dangers involved in operating 2-engine airliners on extended over-ocean flights, before committing millions/billions of dollars into the purchase of these dangerous airliners.
**Now, these airline executives, some of which may have no technical aviation experience nor knowledge, but, do know how to influence government regulators, expect the flying public to subject themselves to this 2-engine overwater flight risk because these airline executives refuse to admit their lack of adequate research and/or their deficient knowledge and/or judgement.

**Airline executives may believe that "Cost-Cutting" allows them to lower airfares.

**But, it is my opinion that airline passengers, in order to increase their safety and the safety of their families, would, if made aware of the danger involved in extended over-ocean flights in airliners having only 2 engines, would be willing pay more for the extra safety, or, would simply decide whether or not to take this additional risk, in order to save money.
**Recent engine-failure events have shown these safety concerns to be credible as none of the following information can be disputed.

Page 3 of 14


---- From Wikipedia - "Dick Taylor, then Boeing's director of engineering, approached FAA director J. Lynn Helms in 1980 about the possibility of an exemption to the 3 or 4 engine FAA over-ocean flight requirement.
** Mr. Helm's response was "It'll be a cold day in Hell before I let twins fly long haul, overwater routes".
**Therefore, according to Mr. Helms, the opinions expressed in this report are not conspiracy theories, but, were shared by FAA officials of the past, who may have been more responsible, more safety minded, and, less concerned with accomodating 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.

**The recently and well-publicized engine failures concerned fan blade failures occurring on the Pratt & Whitney 4000 series engines, which are used on some Boeing 777, and other aircraft.

**But, we must remember that any man-made engine, made by any engine manufacturer, can fail for many reasons, other than fan-blade failures.

**Therefore, all 2-engine jet airliners, such as the above mentioned Southwest Airlines 737, which does not use the P&W 4000 engine, and is also used on long overwater flights to Hawaii, are also vulnerable and are seriously affected by engine failures, which may be caused by a multitude of different reasons.

**Fixing the current fan blade problem will not solve this primary safety issue.
**Recent "Close-calls" (to be described later in this document) prove that more engine redundancy is needed for safety on extended over-ocean flights, as was previously required.


** At least on paper, once underway, a 2-engine airliner should be able to maintain flight with only 1 operating engine.
** On flights directly over the continental US, and, because there are so many suitable airports only a few minutes away, the loss of 1 engine, on a 2-engine airliner, is easily dealt with by an experienced and well-trained flight crew, as happened with the above mentioned Southwest Airlines flight, over Pennsylvania, and, also, with the recent United Airlines Flight #328, departing Denver.

Page 4 of 14


**In fact, because there are so many large airports in the US, that once at, or near, its cruising altitude, and, when anywhere over the continental US, an airliner could easily "Glide" to a suitable airport, even after the failure of all of its engines.

'' However, the Hawaiian Islands are the most remotely located land masses on Earth, being over 2500 over-ocean miles from the mainland US, and, are even farther away from many other land masses.
'' Therefore, flights to and from Hawaii have a much greater risk, following an engine failure, than other over-water flights which do not require the airplane to be as far out to sea, and, as far away from airports, as do the Hawaiian flights.


--In past days, when airline fares were regulated and airline profits were guaranteed, aviation safety concerns seemed to supersede the cost of operation.
**In those days, airlines flying to Hawaii, or, crossing the oceans to other places, used 4 engine airplanes, such as the Douglas DC-8, Boeing 707, or, Boeing 747, which gave these aircraft multiple engine and system redundancy in case of 1, or 2, or even, 3 engine failures, when these aircraft are many miles out over the ocean and many miles and many hours from land.


**Jet engine certification tests are extensive, but, are conducted using new engines.
**But, we all know that, no matter how well they may be designed, built, and maintained, and, because jet engines operate under tremendous stresses and temperature extremes, these engines, like any other man-made machines, can, and do, fail, especially as they age over many years, and/or, have been worked on by a multitude of different mechanics


**Many of the 2-engine airliners currently in use, i.e. the Boeing 737's, 757's, 767's, 777's, 787's, and, some Airbus 300 series aircraft, were designed during the panic of the fuel shortages that were anticipated, and were occurring, in the 1970's, 1980's, and early 1990's.
**However, this fuel shortage soon ended, and oil prices continued to fluctuate up and down, and, newer and more modern jet engines were designed which use much less fuel than earlier jet engines.
**These more powerful and much more fuel efficient jet engines gave formerly short to medium range 2-engine airliners, such as the Boeing 737, a much longer range, enabling them to be used, for the first time, on transcontinental, or, even on long over-ocean flights to Hawaii.

**(Of course, the fluctuating price of jet fuel must never affect decisions made concerning the safety of airline passengers and crews)

Page 5 of 14


**Jet engines, the maintenance they require, their high cost of purchase, and the fuel they use, cost lots of money.
**Obviously, an airliner with only 2 engines costs less to purchase, and, less to maintain and operate, than a 3 or 4 engine airliner.
**A single jet engine can cost as much as 20-30 million dollars, or, sometimes, much more. **Therefore, the more engines an airliner has, then, obviously, the more the airliner will cost to buy and maintain, and, the more fuel it will use.

Please consider the following

**A flight from the US West Coast to Hawaii normally takes about 5 to 6 hours.

**(Airline-type aircraft performance figures are very similar, but, may vary slightly, depending on the actual aircraft type)

**An engine failure, on a 2 engine airliner creates a lot more problems than just the obvious loss of engine thrust on 1 of its 2 engines.

**Of course, considering the many recent airliner engine failures, and, because of the extra burden and power demands on the 1 operating engine, for up to 5+ long hours, there is always the possibility of this 1 remaining engine also failing..

**However, in addition to the possibility of a second engine failure, there are also many other important factors associated with airplane engine failures which must be seriously considered by the NTSB, by the FAA, and by all safety-minded airline executives, such as the loss of one engine-driven generator, resulting in the reduction of available electrical energy to vital equipment, such as the di-icing equipment and weather avoidance radar, the loss of one engine-driven hydraulic pump, needed for landing gear and flap/slat/speed-brake extension, extraordinarily higher than normal fuel usage by the operating engine, caused by the much higher power demands on the 1 operating engine, and, by the denser air at lower altitudes, which also causes jet engines to use much more fuel, or, by unexpected headwinds, any of which could, at the reduced altitude and airspeed, caused by the loss of one engine, exhaust the fuel supply before reaching land.

**It is ironic that the NTSB/FAA and aircraft manufacturers acknowledge the necessity of an Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) to provide a third source of electrical and hydraulic power, but, provide only a single back-up system on the most important airplane components, which are, of course, the engines.


**When both engines are operating, a jet airliner flies at a speed of about 525-550 MPH, and, can maintain a cruising altitude between 35 and 40 thousand feet, or, sometimes higher.
**At these high altitudes, with both engines running, the airplane is in the clear air above potentially hazardous weather, including icing conditions, thunderstorms, rain, engine-damaging hail, (which is very common in the upper levels of thunderstorms), turbulence, etc. which may be occurring directly below the flight paths.

Page 6 of 14

**However, with only 1 engine running, the maximum altitude obtainable would be approximately 18 to 22 thousand feet, or less, which could put the airplane down into this severe weather with only 1 operating engine.

**As stated above, flying through hail, among many other weather hazards, could severely damage the 1 remaining engine when the airplane is many hundreds of miles out at sea, and many miles from land.

**In addition, when operating on only 1 engine, a 2-engine airplane can fly at only about half its normal cruising speed, or, even a little less.

**Therefore, because the overwater distance between the US mainland and the Hawaiian Islands is over 2500 over-ocean miles, if an engine should fail near the half-way point, (1250 miles from either Hawaii or the US West Coast, or, at the PET (Point of Equal Time), and traveling at the reduced single-engine speed of only about 250 MPH, or maybe even slower, it could take the airplane over 5 hours to reach either Hawaii or California.

**The passengers and crew aboard the United Airlines 2-engine Boeing 777, which recently lost the right engine soon after take-off from Denver, bound for Hawaii, were extremely lucky that the engine did not fail 3 hours into the flight, when out over the ocean and over 1200 miles, and 5+ hours away, from the nearest airport.

United Airlines Flight #328 - February 20 - 2021 - Denver

Page 7 of 14

**Apparently, government regulators and the executives of airlines operating 2-engine airliners on long over-ocean routes, are relying on the information in a relatively recent program called ETOPS/EDTO (Extended-Range Twin-engine Operational Procedure Standards), hoping that this bogus program will shield them from responsibility for any catastrophe which may occur as a result of engine failure(s), which could result in an airliner, loaded with passengers, including children and infants, having to ditch into the ocean. (The ETOPS program is also known as EDTO - Extended Diversion Time Operations)

**In spite of its official sounding title, all ETOPS really does, at the obvious "Request" of various airlines, is to gradually, and, many believe secretly, increase the maximum over-water distance from land, that 2-engine airliners are allowed to carry innocent, trusting, but, non-aviation knowledgeable passengers.

(From the original 500 miles from land that 2-engine airliners were allowed to fly after the failure of 1 engine, at the inception of ETOPS, to the now greatly increased distance of many thousands of miles from land.

**The fact that the ETOPS program exists, at all, shows that government regulators and airline executives are, and have been, fully aware of the dangers of these 2-engine extended over-water operations, and, of the many recent engine failures on 2-engine airliners, and, therefore, the need to fabricate a document to hide behind (ETOPS) in a pitiful and cowardly attempt to cover their asses in case a catastrophic ocean ditching of a 2-engine airliner, should occur after the failure of 1 of its 2 engines.
(For more information, please click the "ETOPS" link at the bottom of the Home Page).

**I would certainly not like to be the captain of a fully loaded airliner, with hundreds of people's lives in my hands, flying at low altitude, and, at half the normal speed, and, with only half the required equipment and airplane capabilities, across 1250 miles of open ocean, possibly at night, possibly in severe weather conditions, as described above, for up to 5 hours, with only 1 engine operating.

**This would probably be the longest and most stressful and terrifying 5 hours that anyone on board, expecially the pilots, has ever experienced.

Page 8 of 14

**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, and, even though the tail did rupture, allowing water to rush in, resulted in no fatalities.
**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 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)

(A nighttime ditching, and the resulting situation, is beyond my meager comprehension abilities to imagine).

** For these very valid reasons, I believe that, as before, more than 2 engines are necessary to minimize the chances of these nightmarish events occurring.
** Recent engine-failure events confirm that this concern is valid.
** It a mystery to me why the NTSB, the FAA, and other governments, would allow this possibility to exist.

** On the positive side, and, assuming no unexpected additional problems such as occurred on United Airlines Flight #1175 (to be explained below), the odds are still somewhat favorable that the airplane would probably make it to either Hawaii, or California, with only one engine.
**However, the margin of safety, previously required in all commercial airline over-ocean operations, would be non-existent.
** The airplane would be operating on the very edge of disaster, for several long and terrifying hours, loaded with passengers, with only 1 engine operating.

Page 9 of 14

**As stated, and at least on paper (ETOPS), a 2-engine airliner should be able to operate indefinitely with only one engine running - (Fuel permitting, of course)

**But, there are at least 2 events, recently occurring - United Airlines Flights #1175 and #328, which call into question whether or not this single-engine flight capability can be depended upon for an extended time and distance.

** Event #1 - - On February 13th, 2018, an engine-failure/fan-blade failure event occurred on another Hawaii-bound United Airlines 2-engine Boeing 777 (Flt. #1175), which called into serious question the airplanes actual single-engine capability.
** On this United Airlines flight #1175, the unexpected and extreme aerodynamic "drag", caused by a large portion of the engine cover which remained partially attached to the airplane after the fan-blade failure, and the resulting intense vibration, severely challenged whether or not this aircraft could have overcome this unexpected and unanticipated extreme drag and vibration and maintained altitude for an extended distance.

** (See -- 54 minute YouTube video "Captain Benham UAL#1175 Fan Blade Out INTERVIEW" a shocking and eye-opening video in which Captain Christopher Benham describes the extreme difficulty he had in maintaining altitude and controlling this disabled aircraft, and the serious doubt he had as to whether or not they would be able to make it the remaining 200 miles to Honolulu with only one engine, and, the necessity of having to brief the passengers on the possibility of having to ditch this airplane, with 381 people aboard, including many children and infants, into the Pacific ocean. - - - - - - - - - - (Can anyone imagine this happening ?)

**These statements, by Captain Benham, completely obliterate the entire ETOPS sham.

** Prior to making this You/tube video, I have to wonder if Captain Benham was asked by the NTSB, the FAA, or, United Airlines, not to mention the catastrophe that could have happened had the engine failed 2 hours earlier, when the airplane was over 1000 miles from Hawaii and was unable to maintain altitude. **(In any case, in the above video, Captain Behnam, obviously concerned with ETOPS, at the 49 minute point of this 54 minute video, does describe this near disaster).

** Because they permitted the relaxing (Possibly negligent) of safety standards by the airlines, the NTSB and the FAA, and not Pratt & Whitney, would have been responsible for this event.

** Fortunately, Flight #1175 was only 200 miles (40 minutes) from Honolulu when the right engine failed, and immediately began a gradual descent toward the Honolulu (Daniel Inouye) International Airport, with the left engine set at full power, as the Captain was concerned that the airplane was unable to maintain altitude with this unexpected drag and severe vibration affecting the airplane.

**Obviously, an additional 1 or 2 engines, as was required in the past, would have substantially increased the chances of this airplane staying in the air, and making it safely to a much farther away airport.

** As stated above, UAL Flight #1175 was only 40 minutes from Honolulu when the right engine failed, and, also fortunately, had burned-off most of its fuel load, making the airplane much lighter, and much less of a burden on the 1 remaining engine, than had the engine failed 2 or 3 hours earlier.

** Even at this much reduced weight, UAL Flight #1175 was unable to maintain altitude with only 1 engine operating, and was barely able to make it the remaining 200 miles to Honolulu.

** We can only assume what the rate of descent might have been 2 or 3 hours earlier, when this disabled aircraft was carrying a much higher load of unburned fuel.

Page 10 of 14

** Event #2 - During the recent event which occurred at Denver, not only did all the resulting negative events, as described above, occur, but, in addition, the imbalance in the failed engine, caused by the missing fan-blades, caused unexpected vibration, and, along with the considerable drag, caused by the "Windmilling" of the failed engine, also placed the airplane in an unexpected high-drag high-vibration situation possibility not anticipated during design and certification. (Essentially the same as the above described incident)

** Again, and fortunately for those aboard this Hawaii-bound flight from Denver, the airplane was still close to the Denver Airport when the engine failed, and, was not over the remoteness of the vast Pacific Ocean, and, was not 1250 miles, and, over 5 hours flying time, from the nearest land, when this catastrophic engine failure occurred.
**An additional 1 or 2 engines would have significantly increased the chances of a safe ending for this flight had this engine failure occurred 3 hours into the flight when the airplane was over 1000 miles from the closest land.

**I submit that these incidents, and many others, were "Extremely close calls", and put the passengers and crews aboard these airliners in extreme and unnecessary danger in order for the airlines to save money on fuel.


**With the numerous 2-engine airliners operating daily between the US and Hawaii, it would seem logical to assume that, based on recent events, engine failures have probably occurred on these flights.
**If so, probably without media coverage, and, thankfully, without catastrophic results, although a disaster could occur at any time.
**But, we must remember, as previously stated, that throughout the history of commercial aviation, major airliner disasters have often occurred after many years and many uneventful flights involving aircraft operated with unknown or ignored safety vulnerabilities.

**Therefore, the fact that there have been no recent airliner ocean ditchings is not evidence that 2-engine airliners are safe on long over-ocean flights.

**We must correct this safety issue BEFORE, not AFTER, a disaster occurs, as there have been previous Hawaii bound airliner ditchings, caused by engine failures.

** Because 4-engine airplanes were used in the past, and based on the statements of former FAA Administrator J. Lynn Helms, as described above, we have to assume that the NTSB and the FAA have been well-aware of the obvious safety issues involved in using airliners having only 2-engines on extended over-ocean flights, but, at the request,and, as a concession to the airlines, have hidden this vital information from the public, and have "For whatever reasons", allowed this potentially disastrous situation to continue.

**Sadly, only after a catastrophe happens will this serious safety risk surface and those responsible for this reduction of safety standards will be held accountable.

Page 11 of 14

**Generally speaking, the flying public is often unaware of the extreme complexity of commercial airliner operations, and, with the many complex issues involved in aviation, and, just hope and trust that the appropriate government agencies will always place public safety first, while regulating scheduled airlines.
**Until recently, this trust was well-placed, as, in my opinion, in past days of old, airline regulators were less susceptible to "Incentives" from airplane manufacturers, and/or airlines, and always put safety first, regardless of cost.

**Pilots are also aware of this 2-engine safety issue, but, being in much better physical condition than helpless children and elderly passengers, and probably being prepared with an escape plan in case of a possible ditching, they may believe they have at least a decent chance of surviving a ditching, and, therefore, I believe that, in order to keep their glamorous and well-paying jobs, pilots accept this risk, and, remain silent on this critical 2-engine safety issue.

**(I'm a pilot, too, and I know how pilots think.)

**Sadly, during recent months and years, we have all become more aware of this widespread lack of ethics of many government regulators in their pursuit of various industry "Incentives".

**Therefore, it seems to me that the real issues to be investigated in these Hawaii-bound, and other long over-ocean flights, is not so much the fan-blade failures, because, as, we all know, mechanical failures will continue to happen.

**The real and much more important issue to be investigated, and should be of more interest to the flying public, is why the FAA and the NTSB are allowing airliners, having only 2 engines, to fly the over 2500 mile over-water route from the US mainland to Hawaii, and, to other places, when, 3 or 4 engine airliners were always required in the past in order to increase engine redundancy in case of engine failure(s) when many miles out to sea, and many miles from land.

Page 12 of 14

**In attempting to avoid what all pilots know is the real issue, at the recent NTSB preliminary press conference, concerning UAL Flt. #328, the Chairman ignored the safety issues described above, but, instead, focused on issues that we already know, and pretended that they were the real issues to be investigated.
**However, there is no mystery of UAL #328 that the NTSB needs to investigate.
**We already know what caused the recent engine failures.
**The fan blades are defective.
**The fan blade defect will be corrected, as all previous aircraft mechanical issues have been corrected as soon as they were discovered.

**The NTSB and the FAA are obviously aware of the compromises of safety in these Hawaiian Island and other long over-ocean flights, and, officials at the NTSB preliminary hearing, obviously, and, I believe, intentionally, avoided the real issue of how close we came to catastrophes of immense proportions.

**It was sad and depressing to observe the NTSB Chairman ignoring the disastrous situation which could have occurred on UAL Flt. #1175, as described by Captain Benham in the above YouTube video, while he (NTSB Chairman) described diversionary issues, such as, engine design problems, crew and ATC behavior, the weather at the Honolulu Airport, and never mentioned the disaster which may have occurred had this engine failed in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.

**Catastrophes, as previously stated, that would have been the fault of the NTSB and the FAA, for allowing these flights, and would not have been the fault of Pratt & Whitney, because, as stated above, everyone knows that all man-made machines can, and do, fail.
**The fallibility of all man-made machines is why, up until recently, multiple redundancy (More than 1 back-up system) in all vital components was always required in the constructions of airplanes, and why 4 engine airliners, not 2-engine airliners, which lacked sufficient engine redundancy and performance capabilities, were always used on long over-ocean flights in the past.

**As stated above, the statements in this document are not conspiracy theories. **They are proven by the indisputable facts contained in this report and by the"Near-disasters" which have recently occurred on 2-engine airliners on their way to Hawaii, and to other places.

**Considering the large number of airlines operating 2-engine airliners between the US mainland and the Hawaiian Islands, replacing these airplanes with 3 or 4 engine airplanes would be a huge task, and, an enormously costly and time consuming endeavor.

**But, in my opinion, because of these obvious and indisputable risks the flying public, the NTSB and the FAA must do the jobs they were created to do.

**I believe the 4-engine Boeing 747, (which may still be production), the 4-engine Airbus A340, and, the 4-engine "Double-decker" Airbus A380, (Which, I believe, has a perfect safety record), would be ideal, safer, and, cost-effective aircraft for these Hawaiian and other extended over-ocean flights.

**I have been reluctant to raise these safety issues in the past.
** However, recent events, exposing the continuing fallibility of aircraft engines, have shaken me to the point where I now believe that, regardless of the expense and disruption of airline operations, and, to reduce the possibility of disastrous events, such as are described above, we must immediately address these issues.

Page 13 of 14

**By ignoring these obvious, indisputable, and inescapable facts, and pretending they do not exist, we have, for far too long, been "Whistling past the graveyard", and have been very lucky - at least, so far.

**I would respectfully request that anyone, including aviation "Experts", who may question the accuracy of any technical aviation related information contained in this report, or, who may question my judgement as to the risks described above, to please find any statement in this report which is not 100% accurate.

Signed - A. Rioni

THis Document Was Slightly Edited For Clarity And With Pictures Added.

Page 14 of 14

Return to Homepage