"Doug Carter" wrote in message
. com...
Dave Stadt wrote:
The crew and BA ops apparently were correct in their decision. Evidence
otherwise?

Ran out of gas before they got home; sounds like the wrong outcome to me.

They stopped to refuel. Don't believe that qualifes as running out of fuel
(OBTW they don't run on gas). When you run out of fuel the engines stop
'eh. Could well be they knew they would have to stop for fuel and that was
a desirable alternative.

However I will concede that the unscheduled stop in Manchester to refuel
and possibly repair the engine may have been cheaper than stopping to do
the same thing on this side of the Atlantic.

(I wonder if they took off from Manchester on three engines?)

... he or she shall (upon completing the
trip) send a written report, in duplicate...

I'd hate to write that report...

Why? Sounds simple and straight forward.


As a four engine operation with one dead engine the pilot will have to
prove that proceeding (the extra 5,400 miles) was:

I do believe the 747 was designed to fly just fine on three engines and in
fact it will do just fine on two engines.

"...as safe as landing at the nearest suitable airport..."

This may require careful wording to edge past the letter of the
regulations.

The outcome was a safe landing. Based on that, what regulation is of
concern? The regulations provide for them to do exactly what they did.

Of course, landing to refuel and repair *before* attempting to cross the
Atlantic may require even more tedious paperwork to be submitted to BA
management for all I know.


Either way, running out of gas before they got to their declared
destination does not help appearances.

I don't believe they ran out of "gas."

Doug
PP, ASEL IA, Fool