Since I only rendered my own opinion, I don't see why I must be "qualified" in any way to do so, as it is just that, only an opinion, and doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things. This is, after all, a "discussion forum" for the entertainment and enjoyment of all aircraft enthusiasts. Although, I am not a pilot, nor do I work for BA
, nor am I high in the food chain at an airline, I did work for a large airline in overhaul and line maintenance for several years, dealt with test and ferry flights and dealt with 747s, so I would say I am more qualified than "the average joe public" off the street, even though I may know little of the pilot's end of the operation, or any of BA
I would hope that any A.net member wouldn't feel like they're stepping on a tiger's tail by joining in any of these discussions, whether it be a 16 year old kid who dreams of flying someday or a retired 747 captain with 30,000 hours under his belt, and that they could join in any topic, even if they didn't know much about it, and not be afraid of a lambasting from anyone who is more informed on the subject.
Now, having said that, I will say that I deserved a lambasting for some of the things I said, as I was wrong. I will also say that I should have read the other topics on the subject first, and read the report on the BA
incident. I am now more informed than I was before. In my defense, I will say that I am "new" here and haven't learned all the unwritten rules and regulations of A.net posting, and have probably been posting more and going into further detail and spouting off more than I should have been. But that's not an excuse, merely some insight on my part.
crew broke no laws. They did everything according to BA
procedures. They also broke no regulations that I can see, according to what I have read. It is merely unfortunate that the emergency landing occured, and turned an otherwise normal and approved 3-engined flight into a media event.
PhilSquares, your opinion on why they shouldn't have returned to LAX
has merit. And it is perfectly legal and within BA
procedures. In fact, on a technical level, I totally agree. But since you asked, I will tell you why I feel the aircraft should have returned to LAX
anyways, even though they didn't have to. Even though a 747 can legally fly on 3 engines, and can even fly on two, they had a 10 hour or so flight ahead of them, and some of their safety "cushion" was already gone. That's a lot of time for something else to happen, as remotely possible as that was. It didn't even need to be another engine failure for the odds to start stacking up against them. In fact, the odds did start to stack up against them, as they had less fuel than they should have before reaching LHR
, and they did the safe thing by diverting, rather than trying to reach LHR
. Obviously, the crew did have the safety of the passengers in mind and were going by the book because they did divert. However, the safest thing to do would have been to return to LAX
, even though it may have been unnecessary and erring too far on the side of safety. Of course, I am looking at the scenario with the "what if my whole family was on that flight" frame of mind, which may be taking things out of perspective too far to be practical, and turning me into an uninformed Joe Public. Hopefully this makes sense, even if you don't agree, which is fine.
Don't blame me, I don't work here...