We had this debate a couple of months ago (before this legislation was put in place) with another carrier and the concensus was that provided the reason for the engine failure didn't suggest that another failure was more likely to occur, then it's just as safe to burn off the fuel you'd need to dump anyway by getting closer to your destination as it is to turn back to your point of origin.
I do think it's at best ill-informed to suggest that flight at 290 is inherently less safe than at 370 and that the upper winds are automatically more favourable at the greater level. Has anyone actually checked what the relevant upper winds were for this flight? Thought not. Of course the flight would have been less efficient, that's why the tech stop at MAN. Hopefully it was a 'splash 'n' dash' rather than a full unload.
As has been said before, in the days of piston a/c, engine failure was routine and the go/no-go decisions were based on remaining available range and not on a panic knee-jerk to get back on the ground asap.
As to the 747 flying on 3 engines, we permit TAKE-OFF on 3 engines, for heaven's sake! (admittedly without pax but with overflight of our PSZ and the local community etc...) There's NO PROBLEM with this procedure, provided the rules are adhered to.
BTW it's absolutely Standard Procedure to meet any a/c with an engine failure with the fire equipment. In our case, with only one out on a 747, we'd have probably gone for a Local StandBy, (LSB) rather than another category of response, but MAN might be different. You can't tell the category of response from the report, but 30 firefighters in 4 trucks sounds a little cramped to me!
I'm afraid, in my personal opinion, David Learmont once again makes an inappropriate comment to the media. It rather tarnishes the excellent work he's done in the past to promote aviation safety.
Cheers,
TheOddOne.