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

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"Julian Scarfe" wrote

On a twin with an engine out, or even a trijet, perhaps. On a 4-engined
aircraft which has just crossed the Atlantic on 3 engines on the basis of
having sufficient redundancy to do so safely, that would smack a little
of
having your cake and eating it too, doesn't it? ;-)

I *love* all of the Monday morning quarterbacking going on around here.

I always make an effort, to not tell brain surgeons how to do their job.

I don't see how you can argue that a comment on Standard Operating Procedure
is Monday-morning-quarterbacking.

Julian

Stefan,

they discussed
it with their chief ingenieer

They should have spoken to PR and marketing, too.

But I know: An emergency sells, while a security landing after a non
event does not. (Sorry, this was unfair, but I couldn't resist.)


Not sure what you mean, but this event - if anything - will have a
negative marketing effect on BA.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert wrote:

they discussed
it with their chief ingenieer

They should have spoken to PR and marketing, too.

So you think a pilot should make decisions based on marketing
considerations rather than technical ones? Ok, I'll remind you when you
rant the next time about flight restrictions over power plants and the like.

But I know: An emergency sells, while a security landing after a non
event does not. (Sorry, this was unfair, but I couldn't resist.)

Ooops, this should have been safety landing. German language at work.

Not sure what you mean, but this event - if anything - will have a

I was talking about the journalists who reported the "event".

Stefan

On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 22:09:22 GMT, "Dave Stadt"
wrote in : :


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 19:40:11 GMT, "Julian Scarfe"
wrote in ::

There's
no doubt that the crew of the aircraft believed that its safety was not
going to compromised by continuing


I recall the crew of an Alaska flight that went down off Point Mugu in
2000 holding same belief.

And that means what?


The example I cited is empirical evidence that what the crew believes
may be neither relevant nor prudent. The crew's vantage point can be
inadequate to accurately assess the damage that would be readily
apparent when inspected on the ground, and in the case of the Alaska
jet, a precautionary landing, instead of attempting an in-flight "fix"
while within landing distance of an acceptable airport, might have
saved ~200 lives.

On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 23:27:22 GMT, "ShawnD2112"
wrote in
: :

I made my sweeping generality by reading all of
your postings on this thread and I believe they speak for themselves. My
point about you is that you make accusations which question the integrity
and capability of the un-named individuals in a forum where they are not
present to defend themselves, and you do it without having all of the facts
to hand.

Your inference of the nature of the words I posted is inaccurate.
Most of what I posted were alternate viewpoints from those apparently
held by the crew. My intent was not to challenge the PIC's decision,
but to expose elements of the flight that may have been overlooked.

As you point out, no one has all the facts. Even the crew lacked
_all_ the facts. That is what made a precautionary landing more
prudent than continuing the transcontinental flight without all the
facts.

Stefan,

So you think a pilot should make decisions based on marketing
considerations rather than technical ones?

No, I was making a joke.

I was talking about the journalists who reported the "event".

Another poster now reports the magic E word was uttered...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Dave,

What fuel emergency?


The one where the crew, as Julian also reported, declared an emergency?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Bob,

Now..you might mean "continue the takeoff
after V1",


Yes. Sorry for being unclear.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

ShawnD2112,

have
proven themselves unworthy adversaries


Well, I'm sure glad we have someone deeming himself worthy of final
judgements like these here on the board...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Chris,

What people forget in this debate that the captain would have not done
anything that would have put his and his crews life at risk either.


With all due respect: What you seem to forget is that captains quite
regularly DO things that put their and their crew's life in danger -
that's why we have accidents. They may not have the intention of doing
so, but they still do it.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)