Two sensible posts gentlemen! Compare with this from a pilot:
But it was neither clever nor smart to demonstrate that the airplane can safely be operated 10+ hours on 3 engines across an ocean with revenue passengers.
I have to agree, it was not 'clever or smart', it was
sensible, even you admit it was
safe, it was following
standard procedures, it was done with the agreement and assistance of main base who would have inspected the parameters of the engine.
Just a reminder. The engine was an inboard, therefore reduced trim requirement (and minimal trim drag). The aeroplane effectively became a Trijet. It then had 3 alternators instead of 4. It had the full complement of 4 hydraulic systems as the failed engine's hydraulic system can be air driven by air from the other engines. It still had its full complement of 3 airconditioning packs. All other systems operated normally. It could still do an automatic landing in fog to the same limits as on 4 engines. It could still fly as fast, though not quite as high. It really was a very untraumatic experience once it was established that there was no leakage or damage evident. I would be amazed if a visual inspection was not carried out by the pilots (as long as it wasn't dark). In short- once established there appeared to be no extraneous problem......there was no problem.
There has been criticism of the motivation of the pilots actions. I can tell you that the recent changes to delay compensation would have had zero influence on a pilot. They don't apply to delays of this sort. What those pilots were considering was where the pax wanted to go, where the spares were located, how best to get the aeroplane fixed earliest, but all these would be after considering the number 1 issue- what was
safety! The safest option is not necessarily to go back, over weight for an extended fuel dumping into LAX where spares would not be available, nor to JFK- way off route home, tight for space and limited engineering, not anywhere else in N America where the crew would be out of hours and 300 people trying to get hotel rooms in Winnipeg. Those pilots have their own skins to worry about too,mortgages to pay and kids to bring up. Neither they nor the airline would ever wish to place them at any hazard. They almost got them to their desired destination- they got them to within coach distance. They followed procedure and didn't hazard anyone- admitted by many 747 pilots although they might have said their water would suggest they should go back.
Hence the frustration at some of the insulting comments and abuse thrown at my colleagues- it seems to be getting too common for laymen here not just to question, but to make their own critical comments coupled with abusive namecalling about things they don't understand.