Re: [Q] normal practice if an engine fail @ t.o.?

Organization: Delphi ( email, 800-695-4005 voice)
Date:         07 Dec 94 01:15:46 
References:   1
Followups:    1 2 3
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

Andrew Chuang <> writes:
>Cairns and continue the flight to Sydney (~ 2.5 hrs?).  The airline
>defended the pilot's decision by saying that Cathay had a spare engine
>in Sydney.
>I have no doubt that the B747 can safely fly with three engines.
>However, what is the usual practice if a pilot experiences an engine
>failure at take-off on a four-engined aircraft?  I would think many
I don't know what the law is in Australia, but in the U.S. the FAA
would bust a pilot for this, and have. They take the position that
when an aircraft no longer meets its type certification, such as having
many motors, that the aircraft is no longer airworthy. The FARs require
that the pilot determine that the aircraft s air worthy. If the
aircraft becomes unasirworthy in flight the pilot *must* land at
the next available airport where a safe landing can be made.
A recent case that was upheld on appeal to the NTSB involved
a metroliner. The pilot was flying a deadhead flight with no pax
on board. He noticed an erratic oil pressure in one engine so decided
to shut the engine down as a precaution so prevent any posible
engine damage. He then over flew Laramie Wyoming and continued
to Denver, another 131 NM. The FAA suspended his license for
reckless operation. The pilot argued that he thaught it was safer
to land at Denver but the FAA's expert testified that a landing
could have been made safely at Laramie. The judge held (and
the NTSB upheld) that the pilot didn't have the option to choose
the "safest" airport but he was required to land at the closest
airport where a "safe" landing could be accomplished.
Let the pilot beware.