In my dreams I do wish this whole thread could be summarized down to only a pagefull of discussion points rather than wandering back and forth over the same ground.
I'm still trying to be a friend of the court in my own mind and just offering technical opinion of a few points that crop up.
Here's a couple of coments on what I have read today.
The engine would likely be considered restartable (by the crew and tech ops on the ground) based on the symptoms when it was shut down. From what I have read these were nothing more than engine surges at a localized flight condition.
The application of the word airworthy or unairworthy to my knowledge has its basis only in the decision basis to take (initiate) flight (taxi out). Once it's in flight the combinations of all likely varriables enter into an airworthy judgement chain of decision making involving the pilot.
From only a personal point of view, I'm bored with the endless arguments (nobody is going to change their mind) about the decisions of the pilot. I am however interested in what possible statuatory fault may apply here and as such be upheld by a court, including the appeal process. Typically the courts uphold the right of the administrator to administrate their regulations as the administrator interpretes them. There is possibly some argument about whether these regulations apply (court may decide) And some argument about whether any regulations were broken (administrator through the appeal process may decide this).
I'm still guessing that if this goes to the appeal process (back to the FAA) the administrator will give BA a pass and reenergize a process never to get into this pissing contest with the CAA again..