Well 'AIMS', those are just your personal opinions and have no basis in the rules under which the aircraft was certified.
These same rules state that continued flight is an option as long as it is considered 'as safe'
I contend that it certainly was, all performance parameters were met, and, as stated earlier the remaining redundancy was superior to the majority of modern jet transports (certified by the same FAA)
It seems quite the Irony that this only has become an issue in the US. If the flight had originated elsewhere the continuation would not have been an issue.
Indeed the same aircraft had an engine problem with a consequent shutdown a short time later on a SIN-LHR flight and continued, landing on three with no objection by any of the relevant civil aviation authorities.
We didn't always live in the world of twins and ETOPS, the redundancy enjoyed by 3 and 4 engine transports has been used in such a manner ever since they started service, and continued flight with one shutdown was never questioned, (unless there was good reason) there was not in this case.
Certainly, when the 747 first flew it needed 4 engines, and they were at the limits of their capability.
That is what makes the 744 such a superb and capable design, in that it combines the tremendous redundancy of Boeings conservative design with modern powerplants that provide a quantum leap in performance.
Last edited by stilton; 17th Apr 2006 at 02:51.