Speedbird172

Great job by the crew. I am however wondering why diverting was not an option; I'd be interested to hear details but certainly not rushing to judgment, I'm sure there are reasons. Either way glad everyone is ok.

Climbto450

Congrats to these pilots. Instead of monday morning quarterbacking we should trying to learn from what these guys did. It's not like they flew into a flock of birds and had to ditch or anything.

bluejuice

Seriously, are you kidding me. Here's something you should learn, a perfectly good airplane should NEVER be ditched.

Hoof Hearted

I'm dusting off the cobwebs on this one, but isn't there a JAR or ICAO reg that has an " isolated airfield" scenario that is different from the island destination fuel reserves?
Maybe that could explain or lead to more discussion.

PW305

Your day is not going well when you have to ditch in 7 foot swells at night

Zapata

Divert? Divert to where? When the destination and alternate are below mins and you're in the South Pacific, and you don't have the fuel for an unplanned alternate, where do you go? I'm glad that you think landing below mins from a non precision approach is better. I don't. I am also glad that I don't have to ride in the back of your airplane.....just sayin'.

That's just being presumptuous. In the context of this or similar situations, no matter how knowledgeable you think you are, you will never know enough to say "never".

bluejuice

Since when does an IFR flight plan get dispatched without a legal alternate? See CAO 82.0, which explicitly relates to fuel reserves and remote islands. It's not rocket science bro. As a matter of fact, NWWW, ~400 miles away from Norfolk has a full ILS. Sounds like he had plenty of fuel to make it as he shot 3 or more approaches and then held while waiting for the WX to come up before ditching.

Seriously, would you have taken a plane without legal fuel reserves to make it to an alternate, no matter how "remote" it is?

Whether I'm knowledgeable or not, I will NEVER ditch a GOOD airplane in the ocean. And I don't care how skilled you think are, there is NO GOOD REASON to run a good airplane out of fuel. And yes, you do have to ride in the back of my airplane, as we work for the same company. Just sayin'.

Phantom Flyer

I agree with your comment LOBO; however, when I read the initial report, I couldn't help but wondering why wouldn't one declare an emergency and descend below the published minimums as opposed to electing to ditch at sea. The initial reports indicated a reported ceiling of 200'.

Having been in the water twice (military), I can tell everyone what a ditching is like. It's risky under good conditions. In both of mine, we didn't have passengers onboard, which adds to my concerns to ditch, especially with a medical rescue as a passenger.

I'm checking the runway and instrument approaches for my own edification, but one has to question this decision.

Just my two cents.....

G'Day Mates

Phantom Flyer

That's the correct answer Bluejuice and I agree with you !

G'Day Mates

Zapata

My main point is that unless you're privy to some information, you have no place to be slamming this pilot before a final report. How did you feel when people were slamming the pilots of the Narita MD-11 crash? Dead or alive, there's no reason to play arm-chair quarterback until all facts are on the table.

Well no, I don't have to ride in the back of your airplane. Remember, Fedex isn't the only airline with DC-10's. This assumption demonstrates your one-track thinking. I don't work for FedEx and don't particularly want to work there.