Quote FAA Regs.
121.565(b) If not more than one engine of an airplane that has three or more engines fails or its rotation is stopped, the pilot in command may proceed to an airport that he selects if, after considering the following, he decides that proceeding to that airport is as safe as landing at the nearest suitable airport:
(1) The nature of the malfunction and the possible mechanical difficulties that may occur if flight is continued.
...
(6) His familiarity with the airport to be used.
You note the word MAY , not SHOULD, or MUST. The FAA regulation therefore allows the commander to do what he considers is best. ( I won't add that the FAA will defend him but I cannot see how they can criticise him for doing what this pilot in command did).
The whole basis of aviation is that the commander is in charge of the flight, not Ops, the Ops Manager, the CAA or even the FAA. Time and time again one pilot will do one thing; another would make a different decision; neither is wrong. In this case the commander concerned decided to continue, he should be backed up. In the same situation another commander might decide to dump fuel and make an overweight landing. He too should be backed up.
We have got to get away from becoming "hindsight experts" and accept that on that day with the evidence that was in front of him this commander decided to continue. All the evidence is that safety was not compromised by his decision.
That’s what makes the job interesting and worthwhile. If you don’t like it become an accountant or better still a journalist because as we all know, they are the very best of hindsight experts. Strangely they never feature very highly in the credibility polls along with MP’s. Now I wonder why?
(edited for minor spelling mistake)
Last edited by sky9; 25th Mar 2005 at 17:39.