Jack ; although signing off you are back in, immediately.Worrying. And, you still seem unable or unwilling to seperate "nearest" and "suitable" but start tying the two together. Very worrying. I suggest also that the FAA is not Boeing. "Suitable" never brings in a time element. You head off to a more suitable airfield because you calculate that you will get there quicker. Really ? What if the lovely tailwind doesn't materialise . What if you didn't get the quickest route and full co-operation of a foreign ATC....eooops, and what if the remaining donk on MCT or idle in a driftdown also fails ? All that & you turn away from a field under your arse. Not good .

I know LF very well & we both worked for a company where a 73 jock suffered an engine failure almost overhead destination, CDG. He took up the hold, completed all drills & went back to LGW on one, presumable at MCT. I am sure you will have enjoyed the discussion that ensued as to nearest, suitable etc. He was supported by his best mate, the CP no less. There's a surprise.Official Fleet comms urged us ordinary Line bods to consider very carefully the meanings of "nearest" and, "suitable. We were all outraged but the company went bust anyway.

More stuff on this on the Rumours & News forum, "Smartwings "thread .

On thread, Doha was the nearest, definitely suitable but I too would not have circled around on one donk burning fuel to a lower landing weight, IF, that is what he did. Safe outcome though and is that not what we all aim for (?).

For other jibe warriors ; not a PPrune Armchair A&I commentator but like LF, around 40 years in the industry with about 22500 hrs, all heavy, all transport.

Off to the nearest, most suitable taverna. Blimey, hell of a discussion opening up with this one !

Gordo ; c a m e down. See you up there. Lithos is closest but the barmaid is not suitable . Russian chicks at the High Heels Bar are more suitable & I think, downhill from your res, you will get there quicker. So, it IS the nearest.

Nicely bowed out Jack. Refreshing to observe Officers & Gentlemen getting heated but remaining calm and retaining some humour. Reminds me of Schoolboy boxing where we were taught the art of self defence but later, had to turn into aggressive fighters in order to survive. Go to the Fragrant Harbour forum and it is sheer bare-knuckle fighting ! Cheers.

Obbie ; "The "few" (?)....c'mon, where are the "few" ? Consider the mess if you lost the other donk while circling about dumping fuel. Twin engine, one out..........don't mess about !

But his argument is real. The reason fuel dumping system installation may be required is the OEI climb gradient. I have no knowledge or comment about the actual weight or limits on that night.

The debate will rage on regardless: Is such delay just getting ready for the missed, or lining up one's self for a failure on the remaining one? On an ETOPS maintained frame, ... da .. da ... Probably the most value is if we can learn something new from the other opinion's camp.

Meanwhile,
- does it make sense to ask the CC to prepare PAX for a possible evac - for a "simple" OEI but grossly overweight landing?
- is it prudent to delay the approach to for the above to finish, if the cockpit drills are done quicker?

I hear the cabin setup will take 8 - 13 minutes. (Limited) personal experience suggests the guidance to the above from the manuals is rather inconsistent across operators.

My choice: Cabin EVAC preparation only if it is foreseen. OEI overweight does not require that.

I, for one, Obie, very glad not to be with your airline. Nothing "rushed" in my entire career, normal, non normal or in regular comp exercises. T/O, engine failure, drills complete, land as soon as. Very simple for the reasons expresed many times but still appear to be wooshing over your head. If your airline gives a hard time to a Captain for "flying the aircraft", cognicent of his mayday situation, operates in accordance with approved procedures, "your" airline looks to looked at very carefully. Maybe "your" airline does not approve of standard Boeing procedures which were written for airmen across the regions. They were written for simplicity, ready understanding and if followed would almost certainly lead to a safe outcome.

In my airline, there would be vigorous investigation of anyone not following the above. Some of the reasoning you give for not adhering to well defined procedure would have us showing you the door. Circling about, on one, which might also fail, burning off fuel because a possible single-engine GA at heavy weight worries you...............er, .........worries me.

A review of the FCTM for Overweight Landings gives all the guidance that is required.

Overweight landings may be safely accomplished by using normal landing procedures and techniques. There are no adverse handling characteristics associated with overweight landings. Landing distance is normally less the takeoff distance for Flaps 20,25 or 30 landings at all gross weights. Brake energy limits will not be exceeded under normal or non-normal conditions.

The overweight landing NNC requires a check of the landing weight against the landing climb limit weight, and a check of the Vref 30 plus additives for at least a 10kt margin on the limit speed.

If the landing distance is a concern, Boeing's guidance is to reduce the landing weight as much as possible.

An overweight auto land is not recommended due to lack of testing and certification.:cool:

And Boeing went to all that nonsense trouble of installing a fuel dump system.

There's some good stuff on the Rumours forum; "Al Haynes" tributes, Jet2 diversion and the Smartwings threads.Heartened that the "majority" view is obvious.