A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Jet Flies On With One Engine Out on Nonstop Trip to London



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 2nd 05, 05:50 AM
Dudley Henriques
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:08 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.