I don't think the F/A-18 crash is really germane to this situation with the 777...they are very different situations with very different airplanes. You can't reasonably draw any parallels, or conclusions, by comparing the two.
Here's why:
The Hornet in question had a history, of over 140 flights, with a known problem with the left engine.
When the pilot shut down the right engine for low oil pressure (which was the proper thing to do), the left engine he had available wasn't reliable. It was known to be unreliable when he launched. The USMC has since changed its maintenance procedures on unreliable engines.
F/A-18s are not 777s. They have two engines, but the mean time between failures is far, far shorter for the GE F404 than it is for the P&W 4077. Fighter engines fail at a rate that is far higher than airliner engines. In the neighborhood of a hundred times higher.
So, with an engine failure in a fighter, it's land at the nearest airport. With an airliner, particularly ETOPS, it's land at the nearest suitable.
Big, big difference in those two sets of words.
The crew on UA 328 did, in fact, land at the nearest airport, the didn't overfly DIA for say, COS, but they took the time to run the checklist before landing and stayed close to the airport to be able to land ASAP when all the considerations were taken into account. The arcing path near the airport was, actually, a very helpful move by ATC. It allowed them to stay close and then head in when ready, no delay.
If you're trying to say that UA 328 should have landed sooner, I say, absolutely not. Rushing the landing leads to mistakes. Mistakes lead to crashes. You have time in a 777. Rushing has led to many fatal crashes. I linked a couple above.
UA 328 landed safely, no injuries. That's important.
The F/A-18 was already below landing weight, he was coming off the boat, and was already going to make a half flap, arrested landing. That's SOP for a single engine Hornet. No need to calculate weight, approach speed, or runway required. The airports in question, NAS North Island and MCAS Miramar, were analyzed, known quantities. The Hornet had no crew, or passengers, to consider and no actions to coordinate with them.
However, UA 328 was on its way to HNL, and was heavy. So, those critical steps I listed above needed to be accomplished in the case of the 777. They landed as soon as it was safe to do so. Safe and instantly are not the same thing. You don't just dive at the nearest runway, like 07, that ATC offers. What if UA 328's crew had done that? And then run off the end of the runway because the tailwind, or approach speed, flap setting, brake setting, or other consideration, put the landing performance out of limits for that runway? The crew would be faulted for crashing and killing/injuring people.
Better to remain calm, analyze, decide and then act.
Analysis, by the way, takes input and perspective from the ground, like dispatcher, or ATC. But the Pilot in Command makes the decision.
Pilot in Command. Not Joe the FO, and certainly, not the USMC Duty Officer. A duty officer who is trying to get the jet back to the base to enable another sortie to be flown by the student pilot. The pressure of military rank and orders forced that young USMC pilot into a bad situation. He had chosen correctly: North Island. But a duty officer, not in the cockpit, not able to see what was actually happening in the F/A-18, made a bad call based on incomplete, perhaps faulty, information and perspective.
The crew of UA 328 handled this correctly. They did a great job, period.
Here's why:
The Hornet in question had a history, of over 140 flights, with a known problem with the left engine.
When the pilot shut down the right engine for low oil pressure (which was the proper thing to do), the left engine he had available wasn't reliable. It was known to be unreliable when he launched. The USMC has since changed its maintenance procedures on unreliable engines.
F/A-18s are not 777s. They have two engines, but the mean time between failures is far, far shorter for the GE F404 than it is for the P&W 4077. Fighter engines fail at a rate that is far higher than airliner engines. In the neighborhood of a hundred times higher.
So, with an engine failure in a fighter, it's land at the nearest airport. With an airliner, particularly ETOPS, it's land at the nearest suitable.
Big, big difference in those two sets of words.
The crew on UA 328 did, in fact, land at the nearest airport, the didn't overfly DIA for say, COS, but they took the time to run the checklist before landing and stayed close to the airport to be able to land ASAP when all the considerations were taken into account. The arcing path near the airport was, actually, a very helpful move by ATC. It allowed them to stay close and then head in when ready, no delay.
If you're trying to say that UA 328 should have landed sooner, I say, absolutely not. Rushing the landing leads to mistakes. Mistakes lead to crashes. You have time in a 777. Rushing has led to many fatal crashes. I linked a couple above.
UA 328 landed safely, no injuries. That's important.
The F/A-18 was already below landing weight, he was coming off the boat, and was already going to make a half flap, arrested landing. That's SOP for a single engine Hornet. No need to calculate weight, approach speed, or runway required. The airports in question, NAS North Island and MCAS Miramar, were analyzed, known quantities. The Hornet had no crew, or passengers, to consider and no actions to coordinate with them.
However, UA 328 was on its way to HNL, and was heavy. So, those critical steps I listed above needed to be accomplished in the case of the 777. They landed as soon as it was safe to do so. Safe and instantly are not the same thing. You don't just dive at the nearest runway, like 07, that ATC offers. What if UA 328's crew had done that? And then run off the end of the runway because the tailwind, or approach speed, flap setting, brake setting, or other consideration, put the landing performance out of limits for that runway? The crew would be faulted for crashing and killing/injuring people.
Better to remain calm, analyze, decide and then act.
Analysis, by the way, takes input and perspective from the ground, like dispatcher, or ATC. But the Pilot in Command makes the decision.
Pilot in Command. Not Joe the FO, and certainly, not the USMC Duty Officer. A duty officer who is trying to get the jet back to the base to enable another sortie to be flown by the student pilot. The pressure of military rank and orders forced that young USMC pilot into a bad situation. He had chosen correctly: North Island. But a duty officer, not in the cockpit, not able to see what was actually happening in the F/A-18, made a bad call based on incomplete, perhaps faulty, information and perspective.
The crew of UA 328 handled this correctly. They did a great job, period.
