As West Coast above has so aptly pointed out, the various
military cultures (US vs UK) has
absolutely nothing to do with the differing
civil air carrier regulations/operating procedures.
To claim otherwise is to be severly misinformed.
Now then, if we look at the heart of the BA 3-engine diversion, it is quite clear that the BA flight in question was operated by the Commander in conformity with the applicable UK CAA regulations and also in conformity with the laid down BA standard practises.
To state otherwise, and in addition, to insist that while in US airspace, each foreigh air carrier
must operate as though they were a 14CFR121 US air carrier, is simply complete and utter nonsense.
14CFR129 notwithstanding.
If I were the concerned BA Commander in question, and I had made the same decision to continue onwards to the UK instead of diverting to a suitable North American airfield, I would likewise expect full and complete support for my decision in the UK, both BA and the CAA.
Full marks for the Brits for supporting the concerned Commander, as clearly,
he was in his authority for doing so.
However, from my perspective (a very long time in heavy 3/4 engine jet transports), the idea of continuing a very long intercontinental flight with one engine shut down/failed, when that shut down/failure had occured very close to the departure airport is, in my opinion, unwise.
Even though the regulations under which I was operating might allow me to continue in the above scenario, I would decline to do so in the interests of passenger safety.
Also, if I then decided to continue anyway, and a further situation should develop enroute, which necessitated an off-route diversion, and I stuffed it up and bent the bird, I would find it
really hard to justify my decision to 'press on'.
And, so too would the investigation commitee that would surely follow.
