"Doug Carter" wrote in message
om...
Mike Rapoport wrote:
...In the meantime, you look like a fool jumping up and declaring that
the guy (It was actually a bunch of people all of whom know more about
airlines and airliners than you or I) who wrote the SOP for BA is an
idiot.

As a fool I will accept your assertion that the FAA & JAA approve, a
priori, the SOP and the resulting decisions the pilot made based on it (BA
*has* asserted that three out of four engines is fine with them).

Look at it another way. The plane took off and lost an engine. It can't
land immediately because it is too heavy.

Without dumping fuel ($$)

You seem to assume that the reason for contiued flight was cost even though
there is no evidence of this. It seems unlikely that anyone would risk a
$140 million airplane and assume over a billion dollars of liability to save
$60,000 worth of kerosene. This was a reasoned decision made with the
luxury of time.


So it has to fly for a while regardless.
...

I find more rational be believe that the procedure developed by BA, FAA,
JAA, Boeing and implemented by the crew was not a totally stupid stunt
than to accept your assertion that it was.

Again, this fool accepts your assertion that the FAA, JAA and Boeing
approve trans-Atlantic operations with a failed engine; that presuming
the pilot *knew* there was no other damage to the aircraft and that the
aircraft had sufficient range to complete its mission given the normal
wind variability... Oops, it didn't! They had to divert, fortunately over
land.

As I pointed out earlier, the airplane was never more than an hour from
land.


I fully expect that the crew carefully calculated their ability to land
safely despite losing the other engine on that side, but it still seems
like an unnecessary risk of several hundred lives. As a *former* BA
passenger I would have been much happier had the pilot landed at DFW or
JFK, at least inspected the airplane then continued.

A great circle route from LA to London crosses the US-Canada border in
Montana so going to DFW or JFK is a little out of the way.

Perhaps BA was concerned that the engine could not have been quickly
repaired... Would they have taken off from JFK on three engines?

Again you are ascribing motives to BA that there is no evidence of. I
assume that the engine could have been changed anywhere.

In general I have a great deal of respect for the FAA and Boeing (and even
BA, up to now), but I continue to be surprised by the fact that all these
learned agencies support launching over the Atlantic with a known failed
engine and no visual inspection.

You seem to view the Atlantic as this huge featurless body of water devoid
of islands with airports. This is partly true if you were flying from the
US east coast to Europe but from the US west coast you cross that Atlantic
much farther north where Canada extends much farther east and Greenland and
Iceland exist. Lots of single engine airplanes make the crossing each year
using only their standard tanks. Also, by the time they exited Canada they
had been flying for roughly five hours. If the wing was going to fall off,
it should have done it by then.

Mike
MU-2
..