If there is no clearly identifiable reason to divert to LAX it is obvious that a closer airfield should be chosen. It would be drawing a long bow to say that land ASAP or land at the nearest suitable airfield meant fly to LAX.
If the ECAM procedure stopped the warning, this means a higher probability that there was a fire and what capability is there to have multiple attempts at the procedure? If ECAM procedure
did not stop the warning I would have to assume worst case.
Cargo fire or smoke in cabin are a couple of really serious problems and I would not be surprised if some Asiana Sky Gods had never seriously had a long look at what they would
actually do.
My company would be informed of captain decision and a very convincing case would be needed to fly an additional 700nm.
In the past, observed Asiana weak points were:
- inadequate airfield data base and failure of crews to research missing airfields
- no timely updating jepps
- no timely updating operating manuals
- not always responding to documented legitimate safety concerns of crew