Skip to comments.
Jet Flies On With One Engine Out
LA Times ^
| Eric Malnic and Hector Becerra, Times Staff Writers
Posted on 03/01/2005 2:11:22 PM PST by Paleo Conservative
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140, 141-148 last
To: JohnG45
Just out of curiosity, at what point in the flight were the passengers at risk, how great was that risk and what should the pilot have done at that point, in your opinion as a pilot?
141
posted on
03/03/2005 12:13:01 PM PST
by
GBA
Comment #142 Removed by Moderator
To: Floyd R Turbo; GBA
Do you always have a problem following instructions in the aircraft Manufacturers Users Manual? Duh! The Boeing manual "advises" a pilot ... . The key word there being "advises."
Quite simply the margin of safety has been reduced with 5,000 miles to go (and over water).
BUT MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL ARE THE DAUGHTERS, SONS, MOTHERS AND FATHERS OF UNTOLD NUMBERS OF PEOPLE SITTING IN THE BACK.
'Nuf said!
143
posted on
03/03/2005 11:55:27 PM PST
by
JohnG45
To: JohnG45
"BUT MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL ARE THE DAUGHTERS, SONS, MOTHERS AND FATHERS OF UNTOLD NUMBERS OF PEOPLE SITTING IN THE BACK." Who would have been at greater risk had the pilot landed immediately after takeoff while carrying a full load of fuel and being considerably over landing weight.
I seriously doubt that your are a pilot (computer simulators don't count). But even if you do fly, if you insist on doing things that contradict the "advice" contained in the POH and FAA regulations, you likely won't be a pilot much longer.
144
posted on
03/04/2005 5:18:02 AM PST
by
GBA
Comment #145 Removed by Moderator
To: Floyd R Turbo; GBA
Can we debate an issue without name-calling? It is assumed in debating that when one of the parties resorts to name-calling he is out of ammo and has thus lost the debate. That appears to apply here.
To GBA: I don't believe I suggested in any of my posts that the pilot turn back and immediately land the plane. Please reference where I made such a suggestion. Also, when an in-flight emergency arises a pilot may bust any FAR so your reference to following FAA regulations is specious.
Let me leave you two by relating this single incident.
I had just been handed off from New York Approach to the Tower. The airport was landing planes on intersecting runways. On final I heard over the ATC frequency a pilot questioning the proximity (altitude) of another aircraft to his own. The air traffic controller responded that the observed traffic was "no factor." The pilot responded by saying that he had TCAS screaming in his cockpit and 80 people sitting behind him. "Don't tell me it is no factor!"
Now that is a "Real Airline Pilot."
146
posted on
03/04/2005 5:19:23 PM PST
by
JohnG45
To: JohnG45
Name calling? Speaking only for myself, I didn't call you anything, although I did question your status as a pilot.
You are correct about in-flight emergencies trumping FARs. And you are correct about you not making the suggestion about immediately landing the plane. In fact, you made no suggestion about doing anything other than freaking out ABOUT THE WELFARE OF THE DAUGHTERS, SONS, MOTHERS AND FATHERS OF UNTOLD NUMBERS OF PEOPLE SITTING IN THE BACK.
In other words, all you did was react emotionally to what appears to have been the correct actions by the pilot and crew. When that simple fact was pointed out to you, you speciously claim an ad hominem attack suggesting that it is you who is out of ammo.
Again, the pilot had only a couple of choices, one of them, the choice he actually made, being the one recommended by both the FAA and by Boeing. So, let me be blunt...again. At what point in the flight were the passengers (LIVES) at risk , how great was that risk and what should the pilot have done at that point, in your opinion as a pilot?
And I leave you with those simple questions. See if you can find an incident to relate in response. Or better yet, just say what you would have done? It's easy if you just give it a try. But you know what? I bet you dodge the questions again.
147
posted on
03/04/2005 5:55:01 PM PST
by
GBA
To: GBA
Please reread post #143. I believe I already answered your question(s).
Because the margin of safety has been reduced, dump fuel and land as soon as soon as practicable. Sound familiar?
Emotional? Any ATP who does not accept responsibility for his passengers should not be flying. (At least not with passengers.) This is why the airlines dislike fighter pilots. They are arrogant risk-takers who constantly push the envelope.
Questioning my status as a pilot is in essence calling me a liar. And, in your most recent post, I am described as "freaking out." If that isn't name calling I don't know what is.
Do you remember the SAS flight that went down off Nova Scotia? After declaring an in-flight emergency they went into the water just 10 minutes from an emergency touchdown.
148
posted on
03/04/2005 7:00:09 PM PST
by
JohnG45
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140, 141-148 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson