lomapaseo wrote: '
Why pray tell would you land immediately vs holding for weight reduction? Granted you are on single engine performance regardless of what decision you make, but the airport isn't exactly moving away from you. '
You're surely not advocating that a 'dead-stick' landing is acceptable, just because the airport is close by, are you ?
Imho one might hold to reduce landing weight for, say, an air-conditioning problem ( e.g. outlow valve stuck open, etc ) but with suspected engine damage to one or even both engines ?!
E.g. How were the crew to know that they hadn't ingested birds in to both engines and / or in what condition either engine might be in - it's not like you can get out and have a look at them, is it ?
In this instance the crew had reason to suspect they might have engine damage - indeed this was the reason behind them wanting to return to ATA - and so, would it not seem safer to want to get the aircraft on the ground ASAP ?!
As jmc-man says above, with suspected engine damage, why delay getting back on the deck for the sake of a check that takes 20'ish minutes ? Was safety or cost at the forefront of the thinking here, or was it just 'muddled thinking' ?
B737NG you seem to be advocating 'flying by commitee' - wherein, as a gentle reminder, the PIC is just that and, as such at the end of the day, the decission making rest on the PIC's shoulders ( regardless of what the Chief Pilot or Fleet Manager have to say -
they will not be standing next to
you in the dock, if / when you're called to account at any subsequent Board of Enquiry...... You: "but the chief pilot said it was ok" ..... Judge: "Send him down"
).