*dons hat*

Yes DA50 I would feel concerned about my family being on board. But my HONEST opinion is that my concern would have been borne of my ignorance of aviation - I think we all knee jerk when something in any field out of our knowledge happens unexpectedly.


edit to say that is quite possibly the worst constructed sentence I've ever see...

[QUOTE=SLFguy]
I think we all knee jerk when something in any field out of our knowledge happens unexpectedly.
QUOTE]

Soz Mike - was directed at my own sentence... :)

As one who's 4-jet experience extends only to Vulcan B2s and BAe 146s, I'm not particularly qualified to comment on the pros and cons of extended flight OEI. However, having once flown a Pitts S2A from Jahore Baru to Pontianac (3:45hrs), I can say that I would feel very happy about flying as a pax in a 3-eng 744 for 10 hours and equally unhappy about 3 hours in a single engined twin jet.
My query is this: If the crew were able (through satellite telemetry or whatever) to contact their base engineering to ascertain the aircraft's 'airworthiness' after their shut-down, why couldn't they use the same modern magic to ascertain that the fuel they 'guessed' was unusable was, in fact, usable. Seems to me it could have saved a Mayday and much embarrassment.:\
rts

In other words 'AIMS' a very long winded way of saying that, no you do not have the necessary experience or operating knowledge to make an educated
comment on this situation.

Just asked a 'reasonable' question, cheesy.

My airline flies across the Atlantic on two engines all the time. Why can't a 747 cross with three? I know you have to confirm no other damage but what is the big deal? When I flew the 727 we were allowed to continue if it was as safe as landing at the nearest suitable airport. With the 757 we had to land at the nearest suitable airport.

For example one of our 727's lost an engine over El Paso and flew another hour and a half to LAX to find the engine had seized and fallen off the airplane. Since the crew didn't know the engine was missing they continued to LAX. Sometimes just flying normal is the best procedure.

You can lose an engine or you can REALLY lose an engine! Heck, less dead weight and maybe even less drag...

Interesting newspaper article about this incident
 

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. :rolleyes: 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

First of all no American 777 captain would be stupid enough to go to bankrupt United and my neighbor just resigned from United after 8 years realizing he could only fly reserve 737 FO in Chicago. Somebody made this story up.

Bubbers,

I meant American as in nationality, not carrrier. This is a predominantly British populated forum, so I was trying to make a distinction. The pilot that authored this article has never flown for American Airlines to my knowledge.

The article is authentic, posted on the USAToday.com server as you can reference for yourself.

Have a nice day. :ok:

We also have an AA captain female who talks about the industry. Unless they changed the rules since I flew the 727 we can continue the flight if it as safe as going to the nearest suitable airport. Going across the atlantic might have more restrictions.

Can't think of any American airlines that have had 777 captains leave to work for United in the last decade. Maybe you should check your resources. When was the first 777 put into service?

Why does the FAA get involved anyway? I took off from Las Vegas one day in a 4 engine jet and the gear would not retract so I stayed below 20,000 ft and watched my speed to Burbank. Much simpler than returning to Las Vegas and causing a major delay. I think the crew thought it over and decided it was safe. Let the Brits figure it out.

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.

Donning lawyer hat, it looks like Captain Meryl is applying the twin-engined rule to the 744 to criticise the decision taken on the BA flight.

I have this strong sense of deja vu ...

Yes, I have the feeling I've had that before ....

So says our expert captain. But many B747 on the U.S. register have flown on three engines for substantial distances and time. Why is this point repeatedly ignored?

I think the expert was flying a two engine aircraft so didn't read 121.565 b which says you do not have to land at the nearest suitable airport if you have more than two engines with one shut down if it is as safe as landing at nearest suitable airport.

I was made to account precisely for every minute. But none as pax.
 

"Getline knew that to be hired as an airline pilot she would need to show a lot of hours on her flight record. At that time, the military did not allow women to fly. But by joining the Army, Getline was able to get herself on different types of aircraft as a passenger. She would tell the pilots she had a commercial license, and they would let her fly. Soon she had an impressive number of flying hours." Quote from website.

Wow, US Army pilots let Ms Getline record "an impressive number of flying hours". Is this lady genuine?

Stoic