First, not a T7, just a B744. A lot of similarities though..
It is easy to "second guess" or Armchair Quarterback the decisions of others. Comfy in the confines of our snug room, out of the stress of being in the "pointy end". So, although I wasn't there. I am going to subject you to my thoughts on the matter ( lucky you ).
First, as was pointed out ( often ), the crew does not act on Status messages, as per Boeing. Only Warnings or Cautions ( and maybe non < carroted advisories ). I understand Boeings logic, and the necessity of delaying even their presence on the lower EICAS screen. However, they are
there. They are
information, a tool to be used by the crew in understanding the state of the aircraft. I mean, if we were not meant to view them, wouldn't Boeing, in their infinate wisdom, not even display them until after we were to land?. A single Status message is of limited concern, nesessating only the time it takes me to enter it into the MX log. Multiple messages, all concerning a "system", are another story. Common sense would tell me that something is wrong with the system. In this case the system is the engine. This information, comming on the heels of a loud "Bang" would further inspire me to conclude that all is not well with the engine. Aren't we ( as fellow PIC's ), obligated to use our system knowledge?. There are times when the checklist says, "land at the nearest suitable airport". But, do we really need to
wait for a catastrophic event, and the cascading EICAS warnings to take the "safest" course of action?.
There are instances of having multiple deferred items ( all legally deferred ), where the PIC has the right to refuse to take the aircraft, if he feels that the combined effects of those multiple deferred items pose a safety hazard. Again, it's judgement. We have an obligation to ensure the safety of the flight, regardless of the financial of operational implications.
Years ago, I had an ADC fail. The jet didn't know the ADC failed ( no EICAS ), but it sure poured out a lot of EICAS messages related to the outputs of the erroneous ADC. We had to use out system knowledge, or our "common sense" to deduce the cause of our erroneous messages. My point is, although Boeing designed a great airplane, the notification system in place ( EICAS ), can't be relied on to tell the whole story. Sure, act on the EICAS according to your AFM. But, do you
believe you will get accurate EICAS messages ( or in this case ANY EICAS massages ) when catastrophic events destroy wires, sensors, or when pieces go missing?.
So, as a commander ( and semi-professional armchair quaterback ), deducing that all is not well with one of my two engines, and being responsible for the lives of all on board, would take the safest course of action by putting the plane back on the ground.
Wait, there's more.....
As far as "calling" the Company is concerned. I've had instances where those on the other end didn't know ****. You may even say there were times we were led down the wrong path. There is often a different set of priorities exhibited by those on the other end. Coersion is not beyond them. So, when safety is concerned, I have learned to make my decision, then call the company to tell them what
MY decision is. Of course, operational issues are a different matter.
I've witnessed enough on PPRUNE to know there will be those that disagree with a lot of what I said, yet, I have the utmost confidence that all will be perfect gentlemen in their responces and will not stoop to criticism or remarks that will hurt my feelings.
