Regarding the 3-engined 747, could those so prepared to criticise perhaps read the report below in its entirety before making further uninformed comments
I'd decided that further comment from me on the 3-eng 747 was unacceptable thread drift, albeit not originally blown off course by me, and was going to go back to my cave, but - and one does occasionally wonder who is 'up there' pulling the strings ! - for I had no sooner signed off from PPRuNe when I read an e-mail from a friend who would qualify for the -
.........logical analytical decision making and risk assessment by highly qualified and well trained pilots.
role, employed by a major International Airline, and discussing with me a totally unrelated aviation topic, but during his discourse to me he happened to write quote .......... Our Fleet Superindent actually stated at a pilots’ meeting that, if an engine on a B747 failed after reaching top of climb on a Los Angeles to London flight, it was quite in order to proceed on to London !
Not that many line pilots would have agreed with him but that’s another story…
Makes you wonder why Boeing went to all that trouble to certify the aircraft to continue flight on three engines instead of just instructing pilots to land ASAP
Certifying it to do something only satisfies the Insurance Companies, just as ensuring that The Good Book might legally allow you to land on a contaminated or partially blocked runway, it doesn't necessarily make it the most suitable action to take under the prevailing circumstances, which I agree have to be assessed each and every time.
I rest my case, must go out and snag a few Prehistoric cavemen for dinner.