RTB

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 08:00:59 -0400, Jim wrote:

So a question for all is what criteria would have been applied here?
Ed, being USAF do you have any comments. Should note here that
monitoring the frequencies there were no other systems failures mentioned.

In my experience you are better off to put a twin with a failure on
the ground ASAP. Afterall, you have just lost 50% of your power and
100% of your "J" factor. This is not the time to "fool around."

If you are in a many-motor (P-3, KC-135, etc.) then maybe you can
"fudge" a short flight to a facility with better maintenance. The P-3
NATOPS specifically addresses "three engine ferry" flights (I don't
know about Air Force policy and proceedure). But I don't know of
anyone who ever did one who was really comfortable. Sure, it might be
a "pain in the butt" to mount up a maintenance det, but I'd rather see
that than a "smoking hole."

Bill Kambic

Most of his time and 100% of his engine failures in S-2, P-3, and
T-44.