![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Yes, this is a viable argument Jose, and very well might be the way it plays
out. In fact, there is I think, a very good chance that this is exactly how it will play out. There is however another scenario, and it also may become a player for this Captain. It all depends on a; if any regs were violated, which is up for grabs at this point, then b; how the BA front office and Chief Pilot view the decision from the company policy standpoint. I've seen a few real good pilots go down company wise after coming up clean on a decision regulations wise. It happens out here. The difference between the two landings scenario is that the first option, to dump and return, would have been an action taken to counter an existing situation. The second landing has an additional data point missing from the first. It was the result of a calculated decision made by the Captain to extend into the flight plan. This decision ADDED to the situation when the fuel came up short. In other words, the decision to extend was flawed. It's a subtle difference, but it could be THE difference for this Captain. There is also the matter of precedent. Committing to a flight plan with paying passengers on three engines when the flight plan was computed and accepted for four engine performance, and then coming up short on the flight plan due to fuel is something the BA front office will be looking at VERY closely. Could be this guy will come up smelling like a bouquet of roses..........but perhaps not. I'm not making a call on this by any means. I'm just guessing like everybody else. I wasn't there, and I won't second guess the guy who was. The real culprit in this kind of thing is that in many cases for the professional pilot, you're dammed if you do....and you're damned if you don't. It "ain't" an easy business. I hope he made the right decision whatever that was; for his sake; for the sake of his passengers; and also for the company. Dudley Henriques International Fighter Pilots Fellowship Commercial Pilot; CFI; Retired dhenriquestrashatearthlinktrashdotnet (take out the trash :-) "Jose" wrote in message ... The fact remains that this Captain made a decision to continue that involved not only the engine scenario, but as well an ending condition that involved an unscheduled landing due to conditions that would not have been present without his having proceeded with the engine condition. I don't understand this statement. Had the captain elected to do something else, there would still be an unscheduled landing. With more fuel on board. In fact, by continuing, the captain ended up with the greatest probability of =not= having an unscheduled landing. Jose -- Nothing is more powerful than a commercial interest. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Mooney Engine Problems in Flight | Paul Smedshammer | Piloting | 45 | December 18th 04 09:40 AM |
Autorotation ? R22 for the Experts | Eric D | Rotorcraft | 22 | March 5th 04 06:11 AM |
What if the germans... | Charles Gray | Military Aviation | 119 | January 26th 04 11:20 PM |
Motorgliders and gliders in US contests | Brian Case | Soaring | 22 | September 24th 03 12:42 AM |
Corky's engine choice | Corky Scott | Home Built | 39 | August 8th 03 04:29 AM |