Ah yes, I love pprune bicker fests, and, as the two separate threads attest, this little story is the perfect storm for this BBS, with its large UK membership.
So we've got:
FAA vs. CAA
Boeing vs. Airbus
Long-Haul vs. Short-Haul
Simpilots vs. Aviation Professionals
Non-pilots vs. Pilots
Pax vs. Pilots
Pencil-Pushers vs. Cockpit-Monkeys
US vs. UK.
BA vs. other carriers
...just to name a few.
Well, maybe I can do a little janitorial work.
Factually Incorrect
The "20 minutes burning fuel, stooging about": the track posted to the original thread showed that, in fact, the aircraft climbed out over the ocean, and crossed back when it had achieved the minimum altitude to do so. So sure, the decision to continue may have been debated, but every indication so far shows that, even before the decision was made, the aircraft climbed out as if such a decision had been made.
New EU rules: As silly as they may be, they wouldn't have applied in either case.
"Economics never played a factor; safety was the primary concern": If this were true, all flights would be cancelled because of the risk of injury/death incurred in the drive to the airport. Economics
always plays a factor.
Now some other fun bits:
US vs. UK military cultures: since the regs involved often derive from military practices, anyone else wonder how much the US "if it ain't in the book, you can't do it" vs. UK "if it isn't prohibited in the book, you can do it" philosophies might affect the different attitudes towards the investigations?
Possibility vs. Probability: this is the "conspiracy theory" fallacy. Conspiracy Theorists argue to possibility, and then claim that is what happened, using accusations of cover ups and self-interest (you BA Nigels protecting yer own) to discard more probable scenarios. As anyone with an interest in aviation knows, Commercial Airliner accidents attract conspiracy theorists, and not just because they are spectacular news items. Commercial Aviation incidents are so frequently the result of a series of improbable and technically bewildering events, that the most probable explanation is itself pretty darn rare. Aviation safety is done such that accidents occur from the most improbable combination of circumstances; then conspiracy theorists come in and cook up even more unlikely ones.
So, sure, anyone can posit a sequence of improbable circumstances that will result in an unsuccessful outcome to a flight.
Manchester: I did some research for the previous thread; Manchester is in the (lower end of the) top thirty busiest airports in the world. It also has by my calculations the most spotters per movement of any major airport. Declaring an emergency into Manchester is a sure way to get press exposure.
Actual vs. Perceived Risk: Many of the arguments here can be boiled down to these two. Actual risk is pretty darn important, but from a Public Relations viewpoint, Perceived Risk is critical. With this flight, BA lost the
PR battle, and I'm willing to bet, lost in revenue far more than the cost of a diversion. Whether there was actually any bad airmanship involved can be debated; but the incident definitely created a public impression of perceived risk in the incident, and no amount of arguing can change that.
Unrelated events: the declared emergency and the diversion into MAN were not unrelated to the engine shutdown; while there may have been no actual danger, the suspicion of unusable fuel that triggered the call was caused by the unique condition of flying with an engine shut down.
This sort of phenomenon is not uncommon with complex systems: when you deviate from the normal mode of operation, further unanticipated events are going to occur with increased frequency. That this fact doesn't make operating on backup systems inherently unsafe is not a reason to deny its existence.
So is it inherently unsafe to operate in a non-normal mode for 12 hours? Should the aviation authorities investigate a Mayday call that is related to a situation the crew knew about a continent earlier? In this case, can anything be learned, besides most people are full of hot air, and don't divert to MAN?