Jack ; although signing off you are back in, immediately.Worrying. And, you still seem unable or unwilling to seperate "nearest" and "suitable" but start tying the two together. Very worrying. I suggest also that the FAA is not Boeing. "Suitable" never brings in a time element. You head off to a more suitable airfield because you calculate that you will get there quicker. Really ? What if the lovely tailwind doesn't materialise . What if you didn't get the quickest route and full co-operation of a foreign ATC....eooops, and what if the remaining donk on MCT or idle in a driftdown also fails ? All that & you turn away from a field under your arse. Not good .
I know LF very well & we both worked for a company where a 73 jock suffered an engine failure almost overhead destination, CDG. He took up the hold, completed all drills & went back to LGW on one, presumable at MCT. I am sure you will have enjoyed the discussion that ensued as to nearest, suitable etc. He was supported by his best mate, the CP no less. There's a surprise.Official Fleet comms urged us ordinary Line bods to consider very carefully the meanings of "nearest" and, "suitable. We were all outraged but the company went bust anyway.
More stuff on this on the Rumours & News forum, "Smartwings "thread .
On thread, Doha was the nearest, definitely suitable but I too would not have circled around on one donk burning fuel to a lower landing weight, IF, that is what he did. Safe outcome though and is that not what we all aim for (?).
For other jibe warriors ; not a PPrune Armchair A&I commentator but like LF, around 40 years in the industry with about 22500 hrs, all heavy, all transport.
Off to the nearest, most suitable taverna. Blimey, hell of a discussion opening up with this one !