I don't know how good a pilot you are Ró.

 

Just because you can keep going on three engines, however unlikely, another engine may fail so it would be expedient to land at the earliest opportunity. That is good airmanship and I think that is why they almost always return to Origin of flight. Maybe you can elaborate on this for me. What do you think?

Well here would be my thought process.

 

1. I need to remain within close enough proximity of an alternate airport in case anything else should happen, this can be achieved either by circling LAX or by routing transcon across the USA.

 

2. I need to reduce my weight to below MLW, the lower the better, it would be unsafe to land above it. I can circle LAX, or route to JFK, both of which would have reduced the weight of the aircraft.

 

3. I need to work reduce as much external stress as possible, circling in the LAX TMA would not do that, it'd be better to move out to else where, either with the intention of coming back or of routing to JFK, as I would be moving out from that area, may as well carry on to JFK.

 

4. I have passengers on board who have paid to go places, having deemed that safety would not be placed at any higher risk by routing JFK, I know that there are many many departures from JFK to LHR, operated both by the company and by others. There is also a large MRO there, which would be a good place to get the craft repaired.

 

5. Personally I'm more familiar with JFK, and despite how much I despise it, knowing an airport again reduces stress and allows me to dedicate more of my attention to the issues at hand.

 

6. Fuel costs money, I may as well be making productive use of that money seeing as it won't be impacting on safety and get part of the progress underway.

 

7. The aircraft at hand was a 747, I'd have 3 remaining engines, I only require 2, the chances of another failing are slim to none, and even if that should happen, I'd still be perfectly safe, this sin't my A330, if that lost a second engine, we'd really be fecked...

 

8. Having passengers happy that they'll likely only be affected by a short delay, reduces their stress and discomfort, which must also be taken into account.

 

9. I'd have more time to prepare for the landing and mentally run through different scenarios I may envisage occuring.

 

10. Weather may have been more favourable at JFK than at LAX, the last things you want to be doing when you're down an engine is being hit by WS on the approach, dodging CB etc.

 

I hope you see that any decision I take will always have sound, logical reasoning behind it and would have been thoroughly thought out by me. I hope you see that over the past 23 years, I've amassed enough airmanship and experience to be able to make calls like this, that's why I am the Captain, not the First Officer, my bank of knowledge, experience and airmanship is larger. I'd never intentionally endanger an aircraft, keep in mind I too have a vested interest in not crashing. :wink: . It may not seem the most logical to you to begin with, but when you look through the thought process, and the reasoning behind decisions like this, you realise that you'd never be placed in danger, and that your best interests are almost always those of the pilots.

 

Regards,

Ró.

One other thing not mentioned by R'o, JFK (14511ft vs 12091ft for LAX) has a longer runway, which would increase the margin of safety for a landing should for instance the reversers failed to function.

One other thing not mentioned by R'o, JFK (14511ft vs 12091ft for LAX) has a longer runway, which would increase the margin of safety for a landing should for instance the reversers failed to function.

Indeed another issue that would be taken into account in coming to the decision on whether or not to continue on, or hold around LAX.

 

Nice find.

 

Regards,

Ró.

Well here would be my thought process.

 

1. I need to remain within close enough proximity of an alternate airport in case anything else should happen, this can be achieved either by circling LAX or by routing transcon across the USA.

 

2. I need to reduce my weight to below MLW, the lower the better, it would be unsafe to land above it. I can circle LAX, or route to JFK, both of which would have reduced the weight of the aircraft.

 

3. I need to work reduce as much external stress as possible, circling in the LAX TMA would not do that, it'd be better to move out to else where, either with the intention of coming back or of routing to JFK, as I would be moving out from that area, may as well carry on to JFK.

 

4. I have passengers on board who have paid to go places, having deemed that safety would not be placed at any higher risk by routing JFK, I know that there are many many departures from JFK to LHR, operated both by the company and by others. There is also a large MRO there, which would be a good place to get the craft repaired.

 

5. Personally I'm more familiar with JFK, and despite how much I despise it, knowing an airport again reduces stress and allows me to dedicate more of my attention to the issues at hand.

 

6. Fuel costs money, I may as well be making productive use of that money seeing as it won't be impacting on safety and get part of the progress underway.

 

7. The aircraft at hand was a 747, I'd have 3 remaining engines, I only require 2, the chances of another failing are slim to none, and even if that should happen, I'd still be perfectly safe, this sin't my A330, if that lost a second engine, we'd really be fecked...

 

8. Having passengers happy that they'll likely only be affected by a short delay, reduces their stress and discomfort, which must also be taken into account.

 

9. I'd have more time to prepare for the landing and mentally run through different scenarios I may envisage occuring.

 

10. Weather may have been more favourable at JFK than at LAX, the last things you want to be doing when you're down an engine is being hit by WS on the approach, dodging CB etc.

 

I hope you see that any decision I take will always have sound, logical reasoning behind it and would have been thoroughly thought out by me. I hope you see that over the past 23 years, I've amassed enough airmanship and experience to be able to make calls like this, that's why I am the Captain, not the First Officer, my bank of knowledge, experience and airmanship is larger. I'd never intentionally endanger an aircraft, keep in mind I too have a vested interest in not crashing. :wink: . It may not seem the most logical to you to begin with, but when you look through the thought process, and the reasoning behind decisions like this, you realise that you'd never be placed in danger, and that your best interests are almost always those of the pilots.

 

Regards,

Ró.

 

I could sense your depth of experience, so that is why I wanted you to elaborate on it. Thanks for your in depth reply. It makes sense.

 

Consider my home airport. If it is fogged up or cloud ceiling is too low, most carriers have to head to Adelaide with anything from a 767 up (And most carriers fly the A330-300 into YPPH from overseas-in fact it is rare to see a 747 these days), and that is a two hour journey! In Perth, the most isolated city in the world, has this strange set up where very occasionally aircraft cannot land for weather.

 

A Malaysian Check Captain told me that he had to do the Adelaide shuttle one time when it was raining here in winter (it rains only in winter here usually, unlike the East Coast of Australia). I suppose the US West Coast is the same-LA?

One other thing not mentioned by R'o, JFK (14511ft vs 12091ft for LAX) has a longer runway, which would increase the margin of safety for a landing should for instance the reversers failed to function.

 

But the reverses don't affect landing distance, until your are in full manual breaking.

 

Regards

But the reverses don't affect landing distance, until your are in full manual breaking.

 

Regards

 

Landing distances are computed with maximum allowable braking so reversers, and spoilers are not taken into account.

 

If you lose an engine then we have to figure out how much more runway it will take because there may be a loss of equipment effectiveness.

Landing distances are computed with maximum allowable braking so reversers, and spoilers are not taken into account.

Just to point out here, it's only the aerodynamic slowing force of the spoilers that aren't taken into account but the lift destroying force is, actually landing without spoilers is a whole other can of worms. That's why you can't deffer ground spoilers to the MEL, at least with my aircraft. Is it different with the ATR out of interest?

 

Regards,

Ró.

Now here's a rumour. Those escape ropes in the cockpit actually are anchors. You know, in case the brakes fail. -_- So there must also be a secret 'throw the anchor!' checklist. Just saying.

 

What? Yes, I like rumours. Why?

Disregard... (edited out)

Just to point out here, it's only the aerodynamic slowing force of the spoilers that aren't taken into account but the lift destroying force is, actually landing without spoilers is a whole other can of worms. That's why you can't deffer ground spoilers to the MEL, at least with my aircraft. Is it different with the ATR out of interest?

 

Regards,

Ró.

 

On our Dashes the ground spoilers are deactivated. We still have flight spoilers which come up upon landing though. I actually haven't dug into the ATR MEL yet because we don't have one. :rolleyes: Pubs are hopefully being approved by the end of November so we can finally do the proving runs in December.