Hand Solo - Interesting although you have not answered my questions and you also make assumptions.
Assumption: ATC can make the runway sterile quickly... I put it to you, if you were the aircraft ahead and you heard the aircraft behind stating a requirement for a sterile runway, which would obviously mean that you would be required by ATC to execute a missed approach; I am sure your opinion would be that the crew behind 'pressed on', left the decision rather late and should have landed earlier (elsewhere) - so I believe you to have a unrealistic bias. If you work for BA, I commend you for your locality! Further, I mentioned 'holding' and the second runway to illustrate the level of traffic at Manchester. You have clearly mentioned your opinion on the traffic at Manchester and that if you were flying an aircraft in a similar situation that you would assume the traffic to be insignificant to have any effect on the outcome. In addition and prior to this point unless the FMC was programmed with the forecast winds (if this were possible with the version of software installed), the estimated fuel on arrival would be based on the actual wind at the time of calculation. Whilst forecasts are normally very accurate, in my experience I have seen some significant differences from that forecasted. I feel very uneasy about assumptions that can have such significant knock-on effects.
As for landing with 5 tons of fuel onboard without declaring an emergency, I cannot believe you would keep this a secret, I cannot imagine what you are saying is SOP. Plus you haven't answered my question. How much fuel would be left in the tanks after a missed approach into a visual circuit? The reason why I think this is important is obvious - what about a second chance if something should go wrong.
You accused me of being ignorant so I have another question for you. It takes a considerable length of time to get into a command position with any long haul operator, which means an incredible wealth of experience. If you have a choice of landing without making a fuss or pressing on and ignore at least what would be my concerns (outlined above), would you label yourself ignorant or arrogant? In my opinion and I do not consider myself as a gambling man; I don’t like the idea of having just one chance left and keeping it a secret for that long, I would not like the finger to be pointed at me asking ‘why did I pass suitable aerodromes and leave yourself with just one chance’ – was it really that necessary?
You mentioned Manchester has two runways and this was an important factor; so does Belfast International which if you answer the question above, you might discover enough fuel for a second chance, if not… I get that uneasy feeling again, why bother pushing it another night stop in Chicago or Toronto (adjacent to the great circle track) would not be that bad – finances don’t come into it.
As a passenger I appreciate a good service but much more than that… I think you can figure out the rest!
This forum is for bouncing opinions around, the job of determining the merits of individual actions is for the courts and it sounds like, the FAA will want their day. The fact is everything worked out fine, I wonder though if they had the chance of doing it all again, would they do the same thing?
Any change in policy will speak volumes.
L337, I am a professional Pilot but if you are alluding to a lack of appreciation on my part on the complexities of a B744, you could not be further from the truth. In simple terms, if you drive down a motorway with little in the way of fuel, you run the risk of not getting to your destination. No matter how anyone dresses up the complexities of the scenario, the same analogy applies. However, if you saying that I don’t take unnecessary risks, well that would be me. Have a look at the Air Navigation Order 2000:
Endangering safety of an aircraft
63 A person shall not recklessly or negligently act in a manner likely to endanger an aircraft, or any person therein.
The debate is not the bias we as Pilots have on the actual events but what unforeseen events could have interfered with the successful outcome and were the actions taken reasonable to insure an entirely safe outcome.
I cannot speak on behalf of the FAA, but I suspect their thinking, which I think is reasonable; how did the PIC know that everything would work out given that he would most likely have only one chance to secure a safe landing at Manchester. I think if, or most likely when the FAA get to question him, his answer will not be entirely convincing, at best he can say it was unlikely that something would interfere, but he could not be sure. At this point it for the judge to decide if this is a reasonable aviation practice bearing in mind other options existed many hours before. Part 121 is black and white and very similar to our ANO, I don't understand why the CAA are not jumping up and down, after all they are responsible for aviation practices within the UK.
BusyB – Thanks for your input, but your comment indicates a distinct lack of understanding of the debate, perhaps you could reiterate your stance in some detail. Do you accept unnecessary risks as routine as your comment appears to be a little caviller; I would like to understand your logic on the concept of danger?
Last edited by Crash and Burn; 12th May 2005 at 17:12.