cavortingcheetah, yes, thank you for exerting a stabilising influence. You are indeed correct.
Let's just summarise the salient points raise so far:
1. The 747 event was operated within the airline's SOPs.
2. Some consider that to be the end of the matter, others consider the Commander's actions to have been 'legal but imprudent'.
3. A school of thought considers that FAA regulations, had they applied, would have led to a different conclusion.
4. Some consider a 747-400 which has lost an engine at 100ft to be no different to a fully serviceable tri-jet. Others regard it as an a/c which has already experienced an emergency. Yet others take a stance between these extremes.
5. Because the type of engine used on this 747-400 is the same as is also used on the same company's 767-300 a/c, some view the frequency of such IFSDs on non-ETOPS a/c as prejudicial to the company's ETOPS culture.
6. Some take the view that there is excessive pressure to increase ETOPS time beyond the current limits. However, ETOPS was not an issue in the event under discussion.
7. '4 engines for long range operations?'
8. The Virgin Atlantic A340-600 event was caused by undetected mis-sequenced fuel transfer following fuel management computer failure. The AAIB has raised several safety recommendations to address the design of the a/c's fuel system, including an independent low fuel state warning device.