Originally Posted by Rugerdog
This article was written for USA Today by an Amercian B777 captain, currently flying for United Airlines. The author, Meryl Getline, has over 30 years aviation experience, including having been a DC-10 captain for several years as well. She is also married to a United Airlines B747-400 captain.
Basically, Ms. Getline agrees in full with the FAA's initial ruling for a variety or reasons. Makes an interesting read and no doubt will spark more debate here, but oh well.
If nothing else, this article illustrates a different perspective on B747 capability and performance.
Here is the link for the article:
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/colum...-captain_x.htm
An interesting article,
Rugerdog - thanks for the link.
In this article, Captain Meryl talks specifically about the BA 747-400 LAX-LHR event and says:
It is my opinion that had a U.S.-based airline pilot taken off from LAX and lost an engine, the logical airport to land at was, in fact, LAX. Why? Because, the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR's) state that in the event of an engine failure, the airplane will land at the "nearest suitable airport."
and she goes on to say:
The number of engines an airplane has — two, three or four — is immaterial to the FAR. The regulation exists to address an engine failure, clearly requiring that the pilot choose an airport to land at. In this case, LAX was probably the best bet. The inclusion of the word "suitable," however, gives the pilot some latitude.
However, in saying this, she appears not to be taking into account the actual wording of FARs (para (b) below being the most relevant), which say:
Sec. 121.565 - Engine inoperative: Landing; reporting.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, whenever an engine of an airplane fails or whenever the rotation of an engine is stopped to prevent possible damage, the pilot in command shall land the airplane at the nearest suitable airport, in point of time, at which a safe landing can be made.
(b) If not more than one engine of an airplane that has three or more engines fails or its rotation is stopped, the pilot in command may proceed to an airport that he selects if, after considering the following, he decides that proceeding to that airport is as safe as landing at the nearest suitable airport:
(1) The nature of the malfunction and the possible mechanical difficulties that may occur if flight is continued.
(2) The altitude, weight, and usable fuel at the time of engine stoppage.
(3) The weather conditions en route and at possible landing points.
(4) The air traffic congestion.
(5) The kind of terrain.
(6) His familiarity with the airport to be used.
I hope the two quotes speak for themselves. It seems to me that Captain Meryl is wrong.