Originally Posted by DozyWannabe
That's not being said, but it can be argued that such situations are rigorously trained for.
O.K. No objection.
Because the cross-training provided from 737-300 to 737-400 at British Midland was not completely adequate (bleed air comes from the right engine on the 733, both engines on the 734 - pilots saw smoke in the cabin, deduced incorrectly it was the right engine that was malfunctioning...)
I have read the accident-report. I know that it was not ALL pilot´ s error. Still, he switched off the good engine too quickly and never realized his error in time...
Because of overly strict scheduling laws that sound good in theory, but often cause problems in practice
He was a training captain who had mainly been training pupils in the simulator. I admit there were other ("Spanish") factors, too...
Only one of these (the second) can be proven as pilot error - the first was a maintenance mistake, and the final one was due to incapacitation in the cockpit at a crucial stage of flight.
The first one: 3 pilots in the cockpit did not realize that they stalled the plane! Of course it all started with obstructed pitot tubes.
The third example: Well, yes, but there was a co-pilot on board...
Something tells me you're the kind of person who'd be the first to complain and demand compensation if you arrived at your destination 24+ hours late because of a minor fault with a quadruple-redundant system.
No, I´m NOT that kind of person.
If the flight is late due to technical (or weather) problems that´ s OK with me.
As has been pointed out, most US carriers do the same route on 2 engines every day... I fail to see the excessive danger in doing it on 3.
J.
I never said anything about EXCESSIVE danger but I spoke of "reduced" safety margins ("Engines Running Or Passengers Swimming"). Nowadays, where the "bean-counters" only seem to see the economic aspect of flying (and other things), there is a tendency to lower safety margins everywhere.
Nevertheless, thanks for the first intelligent reply!