Rananim- it was a surge, nothing more or less, just a surge. Not unusual in big fans. I've had loads, some you can relight, some you cannot. The rules change. Just a surge, meaning that a pressure relief valve inside the compressor did not operate when it should have and the engine hiccupped. It coughs out some sparks and maybe an instantaneous flame along with an EGT rise. Sometimes it corrects itself and carries on happily, other times the EGT keeps rising and it has to be shutdown, but it is no big deal. It did not 'disintegrate'. If you are going to comment here, you must read and understand all the events that happened and not gloss them up for Hollywood.
A shame that yet another thread gets taken over by a transatlantic slanging match. It's out of order and quite unnecessary. Maybe someone mistook criticism of the FAA's role as a swipe at 'Mom and Apple Pie'? As far as the comments about Tornados getting shot down, we are immensely proud of those guys- they were getting shot down because the runway disruption weapon they use means flying low along the runway dropping bomblets all along it. Dangerous in the extreme- not dropping a remote weapon from 15,000', but the RAF was always proud to get up close and personal.
Jondc9-
1- If I was carrying the Queen, exactly the same decision would have been taken by me.
2- It was a surge, nothing more, as far as I know.
3- Obviously not. It was a later fuel interpretation problem- read back about it, nothing to do with the immediate decision to continue
4- We are not aware what the later problem was. Strongly suspect engineering installation- it happens occasionally, like the Eastern Tristar oil problem you brought up.
You simply do not believe the Captain had complete authority on the day- US airlines don't operate like that. Believe we are not swayed by commercial considerations if conflicts with safety. You simply can't accept that, so why don't we stop batting it back and forth?