you are completely missing the point mate.
Of course you cannot accept an engine out before dispatch i didn't imply you could. You have tried to tie two unrelated points together.
There is a thread on here about flying across the pond with an engine out. The flight crew were completely justified as proved by the fact they were not prosecuted on either side of the atlantic for their judgment.
Of course I'm aware of when the MEL is applicable.
What you are not considering is the legal implications in choosing to land overweight when there is no logical reason to do so.
If the risk of remaining airborne out way the risk of overweight landing then land. If not then reduce weight.
Take a look at all the accidents caused by remaining airborne and reducing weight compared to those caused by landing overweight or on reduced landing distance factors.
Landing overruns are a problem. I can think of at least 3 in the last few years.
There are two arguments going on here.
The first is "landing overweight" the second is accepting a reduced required landing distance. This scenario tests both. I don't believe there is reason to accept a reduced landing distance nor do i believe there is reason to land overweight. I certainly don't believe there is justification in doing both.
Last edited by FE Hoppy; 14th Nov 2009 at 20:54.