Benjamin Dover wrote:

Really? Then why did the BA 747 on a LAX-LHR non-stop flight, after
loosing an engine just out of LAX end up diverting to Glasgow? There are
lots of reasons why one does not always divert to the nearest airport.


A 4 engine plane is not required to divert or land at nearest airport
upon loss of a single engine. The BA crew elected to continue because
they felt they could reach LHR safely. However, their fuel consumption
increased, and they were forced to land before reaching LHR because they
would not have had sufficient fuel reserves to legally reach Heathrow.

This is different from an aircraft wanting to land at Heathrow but upon
reaching it, finds Heathrow is closed and needing to divert to the
nearest alternate. (because at that point, they would be running on fuel
reserves).

For ETOPS aircraft, loss of one engine requires/required immediate
landing at the nearest airport with suitable runway.


are just too stupid to 1) think of them AND 2) understand them when you are
told what they are.

A plane intented for a cuban destination would most definitely find a
cuban alternate if its destination airport were closed for some reason.
If all of Cuba were closed due to hurricane, then the plane might divert
to puerto rico, dominican republic or miami or other caribean
destination depending on where it was coming from and at what point in
flight it was told all cuban airports were closed.