Originally Posted by jondc9
You very much believe that we are sales people for Boeing 777's and the like. And that we are trying to get the FAA to take action just to increase B777 sales.
Please.
I take the following from the
Flight editorial already linked to, which was the most illuminating thing I've read this time around about this episode:-
Although the argument about extended twin engine operations (ETOPS) has gone quiet for a couple of years, it is still out there – unresolved. At last reading, the FAA and its Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) wanted either the commander’s discretion about indefinite continued flight with one engine out to be extended to twins, or the captains of quads to lose their discretion about when and if to divert. The rest of the world’s NAAs signalled that neither would be acceptable, because if a twin loses an engine it has no power unit redundancy, whereas a quad can lose three more before it has no power at all. But the FAA’s thinking in the BA case is consistent with FAA/ARAC objectives. It could “win” whichever way the court rules.
So you see why many of us smell a rat?