To answer your question; the point being is that you started out stating you wanted the same protection afforded airline passengers, on your corporate jet, that they would have on their airliner, and with a twin engine airplane, that involves ETOPS certification. Regarding 121 carriers, you just can't take any twin engine airliner out over the water if you plan on being "x-amount" of hours away from the nearest suitable alternate airport. An example might be the B737.......Continental Airlines operates ETOPS and non-ETOPS versions of the same dash-model aircraft within their fleet, as does American with the B757/B767. If you really want that "same level of safety", you need to be ETOPS, otherwise you are just blowing smoke about having that same level of safety.
Here you go again with the ETOPS. You really don't undersatnd the ETOPS concept do you? Boeing does not sell ETOPS and non ETOPS airframes. THEY ARE THE SAME. It's up to the operator to comply with AC120-42A
http://catalog.lib.asu.edu/search/g?SEARCH=td+4.8%2F5%3A120-42+a
The airfame never changes. What changes is the way the aircraft is operated, maintained and documented. Things like; Engine health monitoring, Predeparture service checks, event oriented reliability reliability programs. If someting fails on an ETOPS aircraft the FAA notification process gets involved. ETOPS procedures cost airlines money so that is why some airlines chose to only cert a % of the fleet. Non ETOPS procedures are completly different.
BUT THEY DO NOT CHANGE THE WAY THE MFR BUILDS THE AIRCRAFT!
I can't speak of other three or four engine aircraft, other than the Falcon 900, but the way I see it, the only difference between electrical systems between the 2000 and 900, is that my third generator on the 2000 is part-time.
The 900/50 have 3 engines & an APU. The G4/5 have 2 engines, an APU and an HMG. The CL604 has 2 engines and APU and a RAT. Each of these corporate jets has FOUR sources of electrical power. They were ALL orignaly built by their mfrs as Intl aircraft. How many systems does the 2000 have? Three, why because its mfr did not initially design the airframe to compete with their 3 engine models, hence it was not designed as an international aircraft. This isn't a difficult concept folks.
Now look at the 2 engine 121 aircraft orignally designed by their Mfr's for international over water ops. The 757/767/777/A300/310/330 all have FOUR electrical sources. Once again how many does the F2000 have?
My argument is: Not weather AC 120-42a ETOPS procedures are being complied with because, ETOPS DOES NOT APPLY to us.
My crack about Alaska comes from your earlier statement: "And I love the 2000, IMHO, it the best greater 48 (North America) aircraft on the market." While separated by Canada, Alaska (our 49th State) requires no over-water legs to reach from any point in the lower continuous 48 States, unlike Hawaii (our 50th State) which requires an extend, non-international, overwater leg to reach from any other State. If you were in a twin engine airliner, you would have to be in an ETOPS certified aircraft inorder to have that level of safety that airline passengers enjoy on 121 carriers.
My point is up until the 2000 how many modern wide body domestic corporate jets were being produced? None. The Dassault folks felt that by leaving out costly international equipment they could save money and bring the cost of the aircraft in for less then the 604 or the G4. That's why the orginal 2000 came with only 2 IRS, no 3rd IRS option, no back up electrical system, yada yada. The Falcon 900ex was already out wth the additional fuel tanks designed. How come dassault didn't initially add them to the 2000?
My greater 48 comment was intended to show that plenty of folks want a North America aircraft. How many N registered Net jet F2000's do you see in Europe?
Don't take this wrong, and I'm not disrespecting your opinion on this subject, but really what we are talking about is one's own comfort level. As professionals, we owe it to our passengers to be "on top of our game" on every flight, no matter what cards we are dealt. Sometimes that means doing, or going somewhere that might take us out of our comfort level, but as professionals, we get as much "stuff" on our side as possible before we begin the mission. That stuff could be more fuel, better alternates or routings, additional crew members.....something to even out the odds and put you closer into your comfort level. As I'm sure you do, we always are thinking of a plan B and C, so when the unexpected happens at 30 west, you've already thought out what your corrective action would be, based on what you've been dealt, and you are ready to act on it. The HMG or RAT is an ace in the hole for crews that have that luxury, but it's surly no show stopper for people who don't.
I am not saying anything negative about the 2000ex intl operators. The orginal poster question asked the question 2000 vs the 604. My point is, if I was purchasing a new airframe and plan on operating internationaly go with the 604, it was orginally designed to be an intl aircraft.
if it happens at the wrong time and place (ie ETP on a KATL-EINN trip). I think that is why we are in a GIV today.
after that experience.
