DOVES: Let's admit that it was permitted, legal, logical and economical not to dump fuel and go back to the departure airport, (after having ascertained that all, I say again 'ALL', resources on board were enough to keep flying). But how do you understand the:
'Land to the First Suitable Airport'?
They overflew so many perfectly organised airports and had so many alarm bells.
Doves, just so I can understand what you're trying to say, from where do you get this requirement to "Land at first suitable airport"? As I've understood the discussion, the whole point is that this was
not a requirement, but people think that the crew should have done it (or something similar) anyway. If they're
not required to land at the first suitable airport and there are
no other problems, why shouldn't they carry on?
I try to figure out some:
- A second engine failure
- Smoke/fire on board (electrical, from the air conditioning, in a toilet...)
- Depressurization
- One pack trip off
- Fuel temperature low
You name others.
I understand the additional problems which a second engine failure might have caused. But how would one engine out contribute to any of these other potential problems. For example, fire is a big problem. But flying a quad with one engine out doesn't make it any more likely that you're going to have a fire on board, does it? Or change the way that you deal with it if it happens?