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

ShawnD2112 wrote:

...there is no reason to publish further details as the outcome was not
unsafe...

Darn, you could have saved a lot of valuable bandwidth and potential
confusion to the FAA & JAA (whom no doubt depend on Usenet as a primary
data source) if you had informed us of this fundamental truth a couple
of days ago.


Others, like Larry D. and Doug C., have
proven themselves unworthy adversaries in the debate on the issue.

Aw shucks Shawn, are you going to hold Usenet to the rigorous reporting
and analysis standards of professional icons like CBS, CNN, BBC or
perhaps the LA Times?

But, upon reflection, perhaps "dumb as a bag of rocks" *is* too harsh;
I'll go with "dumb as a bag of hammers" instead.

"Cockpit Colin" wrote in message
...
people immediately assume all the professionals involved
are idiots with less knowledge and poorer judgement than themselves.
Most
of the accusatory statements made here are incorrect and based on a lack
of
knowledge of the situation, a lack of knowledge of 747 design,
certification, and operations, and a lack of knowledge of airline
operations
and commercial considerations, as well as a lack of knowledge of the
activities of national airworthiness bodies like the FAA and JAA.

Clearly the crew are not "idiots" - it's interesting however that their
are
also comments being made in the media from people who are eminately
qualified to comment that it was the wrong decision.

And which of those eminantly qualified people was on the flight deck or in
BA operations at the time of the event?

My experience in
dealing with individual departments (like maintenance) is that none of
them
ever take a step back to look at the bigger picture.

While sometimes those departments can have pointy headed individuals who are
a bit...focussed, shall we say, decisions like this are typically not made
by one person or one department alone but are generally more of a
collaborative effort involving several perspectives and areas of expertise.

Just because they "could" to it doesn't mean to say they "should" do it.

And just because they didn't have to doesn't mean they shouldn't have.

"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.
--
Jim in NC

Larry, I wouldn't even know where to start and your responses to others who
have pointed out your flaws have made it clear you are not going to be
swayed by any other views. 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. More questioning, less speculation and accusation may have been a
better approach.

Shawn
"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 20:30:14 GMT, "ShawnD2112"
wrote in
::

Others, like Larry D. and Doug C., have
proven themselves unworthy adversaries in the debate on the issue.

Sweeping generalities leading to subjective dismissal is not debate.
If you are able to find specific flaws in my statements, call them to
my attention and we can discuss the specifics.

Nope. Merely commenting on how people can declare themselves expert enough
to comment on the actions of others with only partial information and
insufficient relevant experience. Sorry it doesn't make for interesting
debating but that's how I see it.

Shawn
"Doug Carter" wrote in message
om...
ShawnD2112 wrote:

...there is no reason to publish further details as the outcome was not
unsafe...

Darn, you could have saved a lot of valuable bandwidth and potential
confusion to the FAA & JAA (whom no doubt depend on Usenet as a primary
data source) if you had informed us of this fundamental truth a couple of
days ago.


Others, like Larry D. and Doug C., have proven themselves unworthy
adversaries in the debate on the issue.

Aw shucks Shawn, are you going to hold Usenet to the rigorous reporting
and analysis standards of professional icons like CBS, CNN, BBC or perhaps
the LA Times?

But, upon reflection, perhaps "dumb as a bag of rocks" *is* too harsh;
I'll go with "dumb as a bag of hammers" instead.

ShawnD2112 wrote:
Sorry it doesn't make for interesting debating but that's how I see it.

Mike's original question asked if others felt the collective decision of
BA was good or bad. This invited debate of specific points that were
known or reported (engine out, crossing the Atlantic, landing in
Manchester, etc.).

Your comments are, I think, better categorized as critique of those who
actually engaged in debate. Unless, perhaps I missed some substantive
arguments on specific points you made other than

"...there is no reason to publish further details as the outcome was not
unsafe..."

"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.

So this BA crew were right it seems

Bob Moore wrote:

None of the above.....MY safety was always my primary concern.

Good point. As Gann says in "Fate is the Hunter", the pilots are always first to
arrive at the scene of an accident.

George Patterson
I prefer Heaven for climate but Hell for company.

In article ,
"Morgans" wrote:

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

With all due respect, flying--even flying a 747--is not
brain surgery. And if you hose up during brain surgery,
usually it only costs you one customer.

I've never had brain surgery. I've flown commercial
probably a few hundred times. It seems natural that
people are more interested with a situation they can
imagine themselves in.

I've enjoyed the thread so far, though I'd like to see
more "here's why you're wrong" than "I've flown 20000
hours and you're a poopy butt" kind of arguments. I
think there is small danger the FAA is going to check
what public sentiment on rec.aviation.piloting is before
making an enforcement decision.


Mike Beede

You're absolutley right. This is like the debates that someone usually
starts after the announcement of an accident where people speculate on the
cause and how the pilot screwed up before the NTSB or AAIB have had a chance
to even do their own investigation. Someone else here mentioned that people
have commented because they can picture themselves on the airplane in
question and, while that's true, it doesn't justify the slander against BA,
the JAA, the FAA, and the flightcrew involved that we've seen here. There's
questioning of the issues and debating the decision criteria, then there's
accusing everyone of being as stupid as a bag of hammers; two very different
perspectives.

Shawn
"Doug Carter" wrote in message
om...
ShawnD2112 wrote:
Sorry it doesn't make for interesting debating but that's how I see it.

Mike's original question asked if others felt the collective decision of
BA was good or bad. This invited debate of specific points that were
known or reported (engine out, crossing the Atlantic, landing in
Manchester, etc.).

Your comments are, I think, better categorized as critique of those who
actually engaged in debate. Unless, perhaps I missed some substantive
arguments on specific points you made other than

"...there is no reason to publish further details as the outcome was not
unsafe..."