jondc9, I feel I have to jump into the discussion at this stage because you have repeatedly been insinuating that your experience and knowledge of aviation somehow confers upon you the right to pontificate to those of us who actually have more experience than you on the B744. Now, I don't claim to have the same amount of experience on the type as someone like Rainboe or Hand Solo as I have only just completed my first year on the type, but I do have some experience of it, the systems, the rules and the kind of decisions that can be made by the crew in different abnormal scenarios. Also, I am not afraid of making my point anonymously so at least if I can vouch for some of the posters on this thread, I do know that they speak from experience and not solely theory as some on here do.
Why is the FAA picking on BA? Let me just put it this way, I don't know...but I do know that if you asked every passenger on that plane what makes more sense, flying to england with 25% of your engines dead or returning to LAX, I would wager that returning to LAX would be the winner amongst passengers.
Sadly, you once again show your status as a pontificator (as you admitted yourself that you sometimes offer your services as an expert commentator for live news feeds on aviation matters) and one who doesn't understand the old adage that
78.325% of all statistics are made up on the spot! If you'd actually read the original thread, there were some posts by an actual, real, live passenger on that flight right here on PPRuNe! The passenger actually poo pooed the press quotes about the panic and screaming of passengers on the flight and then went on to tell us all here that he was very happy that the crew decided to continue and that he would much prefer to continue towards his destination if the crew believed it was safe to do so as it would be so much more disruptive if they'd returned to LAX.
So, I'll give you statistic that isn't made up on the spot which once again shows us that your stats mean nothing and that your pontifications with no real substance behind them except that you are a pilot and have flown the QuadraPuff at some stage in your varied career... namely, that 100% of the passengers on the BA LAX-LHR flight under discussion that offered an opinion to those if us debating it here on PPRuNe actually preferred to continue on 3 engines towards their destination providing it was safe.
Sadly, your tone has changed over the weeks that I've been following this thread and now you actually try to offer us your great wisdom in all things flying but with much sarcasm and denigration. Well, from this B744 pilot who is not hiding behind a cloak of anonymity I'm afraid that your views and the attempts to try and persuade us that just because you think the crew did the wrong thing we should pay any more attention to you only proves that there are still a lot of people posting on here who have NO EXPERIENCE of the B744 or long haul ops who are incapable of just telling us how clever they are. You've made your point and I can respect that but to continually come on here and pontificate on this issue with no experience of actually having operated the aircraft or the kind of flying and routes being discussed just irritates those of who have done so and still do operate it.
OK, so you think they shouldn't have continued. Fine. Please stop trying to convince the rest of us that we should change our opinions. Many of us who do operate the B744 may not agree with their decision to continue but not a single one of us believes for a moment that they broke any rules. Every one of us would weigh up the options and then make a decision what to do. The various options have been discussed ad nauseam on here and every one of them had some validity, including the one to continue.
So, place your bets with your favourite bookie on who will eventually win the case, FAA or BA. My money is that it will run through at least two appeals and BA will come out on top. Just because some backroom FAA FIDO PPL examiner decided to make an anonymous statement to the media after this event, obviously someone just like jondc9 and the other 'experts' with no actual experience of the B744 or long range ops, probably no airline experience even, the FAA has to be seen making a stand on this. Well, if the many American pilots who post regularly on here don't have much regard for the FAA why do you think that the rest of us do after this petty fiasco and their stance on the issue.
As for the other debate on 'redundancy', yesterday, just after pushback, one of our 4 engine driven generators wouldn't come on line. We carried out the QRH and then referred to the MEL just to double check as we were still on the ground but 'officially' under our own power and decided to fly all the way from Las Vegas to London with only three generators. No doubt we have bruised the sensitivities of some 'experts' on here because if we'd eventually lost all 4 generators we'd have been putting everyones lives at risk. The B744 doesn't have a RAT or an APU that can be started in the air, unlike some ETOPS twins. Yes, commercial considerations were a part of the decision making process of whether to continue or go back to stand, go out of hours, put 450 pax up in hotels, wait for a replacement part or a fix. Three of us on the flight deck weighed up all the points, checked the manuals, spoke with an engineer and decided to continue. If any one of us wasn't happy then we wouldn't have gone, just like the crew of the BA flight.
So, please, make your point about whether you would have continued or not or whether you think the FAA are right or wrong and, based upon your experience of the B744 and long haul ops, those of us who do fly the type will form our own opinions of your points. Just don't try to convince us when we have already decided that your repeated efforts are little more than 'expertise' based on the fact that you have flown the 146 or that you have some airline experience on other types.