Does that mean there is no right or wrong answer when it happens for real? Or does that just apply in the interview room? Because when your strapped to 350,000kgs of 747 with 350 punters onboard the consequences are a tad more serious.
My thinking would be I am not going to dump a huge amount of aviation fuel into the atmosphere at great expense and return to LAX and land my company with a huge hotel bill.
I would have chosen to continue to somewhere like Boston or New York, meaning I would not have to dump fuel and from those cities there would be more flights to the UK enabling the airline to get the passengers back to London quicker perhaps then if I returned to LAX.
I would not have attempted to fly all the way back to the UK on 3 engines. But that is my opinion as a 200 hr pilot who has not yet flown commercially. It maybe different if was a 10,000 hour 747 Captain.
Other people have mentioned the publics perception of BA's safety policy. Sometimes in aviation whilst arguably we remain safe, we don't do ourselves any favours in terms on public perception. There will be those who find it more then odd that if you loose an engine out of LAX bound for LHR you continue for 11 hours to London. Vice versa and you dump fuel and go back to Heathrow. Or if your in a twin you return to departure point regardless. Not saying that any of the above are right are wrong, thats just how joe public may see it. Although I saw it as a bold, but arguably justifiable decision to continue to Heathrow, when I showed my mum the Flight International piece on the incident she was alarmed to say the least.
The whole think might like good from an operational, JAR OPS and company manual point of view, but it doesn't look so good now it has found its way into the press. Perhaps we need to add another item to the checklist:
1. Is it safe?
2. Is it legal?
3. Is it convenient to the passengers?
4. Is it going to damage the environment?
5. Is it going to look good in the papers?
Last edited by timzsta; 28th Feb 2005 at 15:34.