![]() |
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 |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Could be" :-)
As I said, it will be interesting to follow and see how it plays out. DH "Jose" wrote in message ... It all depends on a; if any regs were violated There's no evidence of this as of yet, but =anytime= something comes to the attention of the FAA I expect they will look all over for missing dots. The second landing [...] 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. I don't agree. You could be correct if there were only =one= decision - for example, to cross middle of the Atlantic, with no alternatives until the destination. But this was not the case. I'm sure that decisions were made all along the way that they can continue at least to point A... then when over A, at least to point B... etc. None of those decisions to continue a bit further would have compromised safety, and each one takes them closer to a successful and safe outcome. Well, finally they get to Q, and decide that they should =not= continue to R (the destination) because to do so would adversely impact safety, so they land at Q. There is a safe outcome (landing with plenty of fuel and options), but arguably not a successful one (passengers are not =at= their destination. However, the passengers are (maybe) within a bus ride of their destination, which is better than being an ocean away. The airplane is much closer to home turf. The airplane landed with low fuel rather than a fuel overload, which is safer for landing anyway, and all the fuel was used to move the airplane and its cargo towards its destination, rather than being wasted. I will take it at face value (approved by FAA and BA) that the procedure is "safe enough". I'm not going to second guess a hundred professionals who know more about jumbo jets than I've forgotten about piston singles. I also take what you say (about the political aspects of any situation like this) at face value. But politics doesn't =change= the right answer. It just sometimes punishes it. One should always bear in mind the difference between an error and an unfortunate outcome. 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 |