Thialfi
:

In article
Sam Whitman wrote:

Thialfi wrote:

In article
Sam Whitman wrote:

Read it again, especially pargraph (b). Then read 121.627.
Continuing flight for several thousand miles and an ocean
with a
catastrophic engine failure may seem reasonable to you, but
the
NTSB has repeatedly ruled that it's not safe to THEM.
And they get to make that decision; you don't.

NTSB won't be making any decisions regarding this.

That's true - British Airways will be offered a chance to pay a
civil penalty in lieu of revocation of their certificate.

They'll pay it.

So a US scheduled carrier would explicitly (under
FAA's own regs) to do so.

Case law proves you wromg.

Please reread what I wrote. I didn't say anything about case
law.

That's why you've missed the point.
The issue is "careless or reckless", a rule that does apply to
foreign carriers.
And the NTSB has repeatedly ruled that a failure to land at the
nearest suitable airport in case of engine failure is careless
and reckless.

Finally note that British Airways is not a US carrier and
not
even required to follow 14 CFR 121.

It's required to follow Part 91.
See 91.13.

British Airways needs a Part 129 certificate to operate in US
airspace.
The FAA has every right to revoke British Airways' Part 129
certificate for this flight.

Which has nothing to do with 14 CFR 121.

...but has everything to do with part 91.
Which is what the original article said the FAA plans to charge
British Airways with.
Only Part 91 contains the phrase "careless or reckless".


and they'll fail, because it's meant as a catch-all to cover unforseen
circumstances. Since they clearly laid out the circumstances as they
occured, they haven't a leg to stand on.

Besides, since BA is still basically the British flag carrier, as long as
Tony is Shrub's lap dog, well..


Bertie