Bus429. It is not disapproved either! Throwing the spotlight onto several totally different incidents in one thread is just clouding the whole issue. In my 34 years paid employment as a pilot and 18,400 flying hours from turboprops to 747s, I am firmly of the opinion that the flight continuation policy is correct.
If AMF can stop playing teasing games and indulge in a serious discussion, don't underestimate the risks of fuel dumping. Pouring out 2 tonnes/minute close to the outboard engines carries separate risks of its own as well as atmospheric pollution- benzene is a carcinogen, and 100 tonnes of jet fuel has to go somewhere. It is an emergency-only procedure and not to be done lightly. The 747 on 3 is almost up there with a trijet on 3- it is a wonderful machine with incredible redundancy. The spotlight should fall instead on allowing the concept of 777s to proceed on 1 engine over the Pacific wastes for hours on end, not a 747 that would still be flyable on 2. I know which I would rather experience.