PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - BA747 3 engine LAX-LHR article
View Single Post
Old 19th Apr 2006, 11:47
  #205 (permalink)  
jondc9
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
sailing:

let us look at the 3/4 engine question another way. with my 3 engine ferry you indicate a slightly higher risk for innocents on the ground and you are right...so too the risk for the BA flight's innocents on the ground .


Now, "what if" the passengers on the BA 747 had been asked the question:

Shall we continue for a dozen hours with one engine out all the way to England or return right away to Los Angeles?


The question could have been further complicated by sub questions:

Shall we take a chance on weather condtions in England or land in known beautiful conditions in Los Angeles?

Shall we take a chance of putting you up in a hotel for the night in Los Angeles or the possibility of putting you up anyplace along the way, including smaller cities?

Will you trust your fine flight crew more while well rested to land shortly after takeoff or after a dozen hours in flight with added anxiety?



I would bet that the passengers would choose to go back to LAX.

They didn't get to vote on the actual flight...but speaking of profits how many passengers has BA lost from cautious passengers over this? I know I would no longer place BA in such high esteem when asked by non pilot passengers for an airline reccomendation.


You speak of aviation authorities making decisions. Consider the calculus on this one: In 1998 a large Newspaper in the USA had headlines about something called "Air Rage". Detailed information about weaknesses of cockpit doors were discussed on page one of this paper. Aviation authorities did nothing...fast forward to 9/11/01. If pilots had stayed behind hardened/locked doors on 9/11 how many people would have died?


I have dealt with FAA types including the deputy administrator and the Head of the FAA. I spoke the last time (before 9/11) with Jane Garvey and indicted the old thinking about security was a waste of time (among other safety items)

Profit vs safety?

The true cost of any decision may never be known. Why not drop Cat 1 decision height to 100 feet? That would save money, wouldn't it? Why not lower the flying hours required to hold an ATP to 500 hours?

Simply put, the decision to continue to England on 3 engines was not as safe as returning to LAX.

Simply put,imho our industry should put safety first.

And all airlines should hold the highest level of safety. Alas only reregulation would allow for this.


cheers

jon
jondc9 is offline