Replies

I've read your posts and your profile and am the first to admit that you are one of the most knowledgeable here about aviation. So when I find myself on the opposite side of this story from you, I am prepared to admit I'm wrong. However, I am hoping you would help me understand what the pilot might have been dealing with.

The assumption is that the B747 captain should have landed asap. But if the plane was carrying a full load of fuel, wouldn't it have been too heavy to land safely? If so, how long would it have taken to dump enough fuel to get down to max. landing weight?

I agree that there was damage, maybe beyond that one engine, but if the a/c was indicating that there were no other troubles and you're too heavy to land immediately, why not continue on, monitoring the situation with one eye and keeping alternate in mind with the other? From what others have said, that is what the FAA regs and the POH recommend.

I'm not trying to pick a fight, but there has been so much emotional reaction from others on this topic I was hoping that you might help me and perhaps others to see the incident more clearly.

Thanks for your thoughtful post and the kind words.

Pilots must make judgment calls all the time, and during emergencies that is when they really earn the big bucks they are paid. In this case, I suggest the pilot abdicated his responsibility by allowing some ground-based "manager" in London decide what is a safe course of action. The pilot was flying the jet. The pilot experienced the event. The pilot knew something was wrong, very wrong, and the pilot knows best what is a safe and sound course of action.

Given that the pilot did not know if there was additional damage I submit the prudent course of action would have been to dump gas and land as soon as practicable, not necessarily as soon as possible. A difference. Many emergencies do not require an immediate landing, whereas some do and damned the gross weight.

Dumping gas on a 747 is something I am not familiar with. However, if he remained in the local area and if something else happened (likely/possible) he would have been basically on final approach and able to land ASAP if need be. If he continued on he would be (at times) over an hour away from a suitable landing field. Not good.

FAA regs recommend courses of action but at no time are the regs justification to violate the principles of sound judgment. So, FAA regs may offer guidance they may not be all-encompassing directive regarding the safe operation of your aircraft. The pilot is the ultimate authority to ensure safe operation of the aircraft.

That said, if you do have an emergency and violate regulations, the FAA will investigate and assess if your actions were prudent. Caution in how you operate an aircraft is the watchword here. No one blames a pilot for being safe. Everyone blames a pilot when he exercises poor judgment and opewrates an aircraft in an unsafe manner, and rightfully so.

I hope my comments help. I fault the pilot for not acting as a pilot.