§ 26. Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Minister of Technology what considerations he gave to the safety considerations involved before deciding to proceed with the development of very large passenger aircraft equipped with not more than two power-plants.
§ Mr. StonehouseWe satisfied ourselves that they could meet the same safety standards as large aircraft equipped with more than two engines.
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterIs it not a fact, as has been perseveringly suggested by the hon. Member for Bebington (Mr. Brooks), that the European airbus is at present designed with only two engines? Does the safety consideration to which the hon. Gentleman referred cover the situation which would arise in the event of the failure of one of those at or shortly after takeoff?
§ Mr. StonehouseYes, Sir, we are satisfied that a large aircraft with two engines will be as safe as one with three or more. If one engine fails, the aircraft will be able to fly on the other. The chance of two engines failing simultaneously is about one in 300 million hours, so I think that we can discount that.
§ Mr. BrooksWould my hon. Friend confirm that the French and Germans are 1081 unequivocally committed to the concept of a two-engined airbus and will not withdraw at the last moment?
§ Mr. CorfieldWould the hon. Gentleman confirm that the American choice of three engines is due entirely to the peculiarities of their internal routes, particularly the difficulties of crossing the Rockies, and that there is no difference in safety hazard between the two types of aircraft?
Mr. StorehouseThat is correct. The Americans took a long time to reach this decision and for many months a two-engined American airbus was being planned, but they have now chosen a three-engined one because of the special requirements of their routes.