Originally Posted by
Arnold E
Interesting the discussion here about where to land and particularly what the company policy is. If I was a passenger, or indeed the pilot with an engine failure on a twin engine aircraft, the last thing on the list of considerations to me would be company policy. the heroes who want to continue beyond the absolute nearest runway that can accept the aircraft in my opinion are crazy. An engine has failed, why? what has caused it? what is the condition of the other engine? will it fail also? Is the failed engine windmilling? will it suddenly seize? what are the consequences if it does? was the pylon damaged in any way during the event? If I am ever a passenger on an aircraft that you are flying and it has an engine failure (catastrophic by the sounds of it), please forget all the hero pilot **** and get the damn thing on the ground as soon as possible
Maybe I should have put "SOPs" instead of "policy" for your better understanding, Arnold, although there is usually not much between them.
Do you understand that these a/c are maintained to ETOPS/EDTO (or similar) standards which means the probability of both engines suffering a failure is reduced to an infinitesimal level? That is why they are certified to fly for 120/180/217 minutes (depending on the type) on one engine.
If you would like the crew to get the a/c on the ground as soon as possible (into an airport that is less than ideal i.e. suitable) when it is not required then I take it you would be extremely uncomfortable being in a twin-engined aircraft crossing the Pacific where the nearest aerodrome might be somewhere like Tarawa or Kosrae. They certainly might be nearer (achieving your "as soon as possible" desire) but they are not "suitable" for a number of reasons.
As to a failed engine windmilling and then seizing - what is the issue, it's not developing power anyway? Seizure would preclude any relight attempt but not many would want to try that seeing they've shut it down for good reason.
p.s Just commenting on your "the absolute nearest runway that can accept the aircraft". We don't know the circumstances that took WA coastal aerodromes out of consideration. Things like RFF, weather, available approaches, pilot familiarity (the crew may well have done sim famil into ASP for all we know) are all factors that contribute to an aerodrome being "suitable". It may well transpire that ASP was "the absolute nearest runway that can accept the aircraft". Why don't we wait until we have the facts.
.