Originally Posted by
airdualbleedfault
Saying that they'd be over half way by the time they'd secured the engine is clutching at straws and defending the indefensible. A half decent crew would have the engine secure and an approach brief done in 15 minutes not the 40 that it would take to get to the CP at reduced engine out speeds. You can try and polish a turd all you like...........
Hmm 40 minutes to CP? How so? At DC 3 speeds maybe.
I did not say that they would be 'over' half way to anywhere, merely that if they did get a relight and it subsequently ran down again and they had to go through the whole securing drill again, they could POSSIBLY be so near to half way that it would not matter on such a short sector.
Taking this particular flight: Engine failure is fully recognised roughly 30 nm south of GET. Allowing another 20 nm to complete the shutdown and follow-up actions puts a realistic CP about 10 minutes away at OEI speed - which is surely within a reasonable risk boundary when all the other factors favouring PER are considered. If the most suitable runway back at GET was RWY 21 there goes 5 minutes of that 10 anyway.
From the luxury of my armchair, about all that I may have done differently if not feeling rushed would have been to take the track-shortening.
As for the ATSB now suggesting that we must always be within gliding distance once an engine quits (if that is the implication of the report), we may as well ground all twins right now.