meaning: "in point of time" ?

[NoPax]

So, if you loose an engine departing from say, LAX, and you're driving around a B747-400, and there is a spare engine say, in LHR, and there is a Union Jack painted on the tail, you just go to LHR? I got it.

Actually I believe he is referring to a British Airways 747 that shut an engine down shortly after takeoff at LAX and continued to LHR, only to divert to Manchester after the crew couldn't determine the amount of fuel available due to not being able to climb to their planned altitude.

I'm not defending this behavior however, British Airways operate under different regs, so comparing Part 121 to their actions, is not comparing apples to apples.

 

[r1830]

Another issue to think about for the nearest suitable airport in point of time is what type of emergency services are available. Flying out on the Yukon Kuskokwim Delta in Alaska most of the airports served by 135 and 121 operators are not Part 139 airports. If I have an engine failure in the Twin Otter, I am flying back to Bethel were there is an ILS approach, a 7000 ft runway and CFR (Crash Fire Rescue). It is a much more suitable airport to land at than say Nightmute which is 1600 ft long 45 feet wide (when it was certified years ago - 1600X30 might be a more acurate description) and has no emergency services. The runway looks more like a dirt road and has frost heaves so large somebody with a dirtbike might confuse it for a dirt track. Not to mention only having about ten feet either side of the mains while landing single engine on a gravel/ice covered strip with a twenty knot crosswind is asking for an accident. That is exciting and challenging enough when everthing is working great.

I will gladly fill out a report as to why I passed up three airports that have gravel strips less than 2000 feet long with no CFR. Although, technically I would not have to fill out a report because I did land at the nearest suitable airport in point of time.

 

[Dumbledore]

There is no FAA paper clarifying that language...no regulation, no legal interpretation, etc.

I believe there is some case law involving a couple of situatuions involving air carriers in which crews were investigated/prosecuted for not landing at the nearest suitable airport after an event that called for it. They elected instead to go where their company had facilities and tried to claim that this consideration had something to do with the "suitable" part of that phrase. The FAA didn't agree.

Anyone else remember something like this? Happened in Nebraska or something.

 

[Sam Snead]

What I remember is some crew, after losing an engine, got busted when they overflew what the FAA said were 'suitable' airports. The crew landed at an mx base instead.

I believe the crew's argument was the exact meaning of the word 'suitable'. Unfortunately for them, it's pretty clear in part 121 what you're sposed to do in an emergency.

I feel bad for them. They fell victim to UNSAFE MGMT PRACTICES!

 

[loflyer]

I believe there is some case law involving a couple of situatuions involving air carriers in which crews were investigated/prosecuted for not landing at the nearest suitable airport after an event that called for it. They elected instead to go where their company had facilities and tried to claim that this consideration had something to do with the "suitable" part of that phrase. The FAA didn't agree.

Anyone else remember something like this? Happened in Nebraska or something.

I believe it was a Midwest crew. From what I remember they lost an engine and were slightly closer to an airport they didn't serve - so they instead chose to go an airport they did serve thinking that it was more "suitable". The distance difference between the two aiports was really irrelevant because they had enough altitude where they had to circle to descend to either one. The FAA went after them and - if I remember right - I think they were able to get a short suspension on the CA's license. The fed's case all hinged on fact that the crew didn't choose the closest suitable airport.

 

[JAFI]

I believe it was a Midwest crew. From what I remember they lost an engine and were slightly closer to an airport they didn't serve - so they instead chose to go an airport they did serve thinking that it was more "suitable". The distance difference between the two aiports was really irrelevant because they had enough altitude where they had to circle to descend to either one. The FAA went after them and - if I remember right - I think they were able to get a short suspension on the CA's license. The fed's case all hinged on fact that the crew didn't choose the closest suitable airport.

Were you there in the court to hear this or is this something you heard from some one's brother's barber's cousin next door neighbors girl friend? You may be correct but let's be sure it's acurate before posting "what you heard".
============
In short you must convince the Admin. Law Judge that you landed at the nearest suitable airport in point of time. The whole point is to get the aircraft safely on the ground as quickly as possible. The concern is that the "other" engine can quit and you will not be able to "make" it to the maintenance base or any where other than down.

This must be a safety decision, not a convience decision. If you can satisfy both, all well and good as long as safety is the PRIMARY reason. Again, to the satisification of the Judge....

JAFI

 

[Sam Snead]

Were you there in the court to hear this or is this something you heard from some one's brother's barber's cousin next door neighbors girl friend? You may be correct but let's be sure it's acurate before posting "what you heard".
============

YOU were not there EITHER!

Dude! I believe that most of the pilots on this forum have good intentions, and the use of hearsay is just fine. Pro pilots usually have excellent memories anyway.

I think you should back off, and realize that we are here to DISCUSS things. Plus, there were only 2 or 3 pilots in the airplane, and at the most, a dozen or two at a hearing.

Where does that leave the rest of the tens of thousands us?

JAFI, if you want rote accuracy, look somewhere else. I'm asking for tolerance on this forum.

 

[Spooky 1]

I believe it was a Midwest crew. From what I remember they lost an engine and were slightly closer to an airport they didn't serve - so they instead chose to go an airport they did serve thinking that it was more "suitable". The distance difference between the two aiports was really irrelevant because they had enough altitude where they had to circle to descend to either one. The FAA went after them and - if I remember right - I think they were able to get a short suspension on the CA's license. The fed's case all hinged on fact that the crew didn't choose the closest suitable airport.[/QUOTE

I'll try to find it but I think their was a water shed decision regarding a Merlin or Metro down in the Denver area a few years ago. It went before the NTSB/DOT/FAA and the pilots action were deemed wrong when he passed over a couple of suitable aiports while proceeding to his destination. I actually think I saw refernce to it here on this board, so it must be true!

 

[avbug]

Dude! I believe that most of the pilots on this forum have good intentions, and the use of hearsay is just fine.

No, it isn't. Particularly in a discussion of law and regulation. Speculation and guesswork is juvinile and unprofessional.

Pro pilots usually have excellent memories anyway.

Then why do we use checklists?

 

[JAFI]

Sam, I’m not sure where to start here. I thought I was discussing "things" when I asked a question "were you there or is this something that you heard?" and I made a suggestion that "we make sure something is accurate before posting it". I could change the words "posting it" to "betting your life on it" or "going to court with that".

If you wish to accept "hearsay" to base your decisions, I can only say good luck with that.

I have some land to sell that is "Not" a toxic waste dump. Will you believe what you hear, or would you like to check the land out before you give me the cash?

---- "Where does that leave the rest of the tens of thousands us? ---

Hopefully looking for accurate information to base your life and liberty on.

I'm not sure what "Rote Accuracy" is, but I try to be as accurate as I can to pass on correct information and not hearsay, innuendo, or rumor.

I'm at a loss on how to continue any more of a response.

edit ---
As I re-read the post I commented on, he did say "As I remember" so it was wrong of me to jump as I did. I apologize. Sometimes I read too quickly. One of my many faults.


JAFI