but sometimes the impossible and improbable become the possible and inevitable. Stuff happens.
This is a brilliant encapsulation of the entire "dialogue of the deaf" that takes place on this and other threads concerning this flight.
What
Rugerdog says above is absolutely correct (and I am only using his words to make my point, not attack him as an individual). These words make the argument for caution - but it is a generic argument, more like a safety admonition than an absolute. It really does not help, because, if you apply the argument in the following context, the get to a logical outcome that even our B777 experts would not like :
Situation: B777 on one engine over pacific has to fly for three hours to get to an airport.
Safety rule: "but sometimes the impossible and improbable become the possible and inevitable. Stuff happens."
Conclusion: twin-engined operations are unacceptable because to end up on one engine is too risky (in case improbable "stuff might happen" and the remaining
one engine might fail - then you don't need to come up with mountain scenarios ... ).
On this basis the exchange of
opinion and the ensuing nonsense in postings here can continue forever.
What is involved in this matter is quantifiable in terms of risk, redundancy, etc. However, it seems preferable to some to just use the matter to throw back unsupported opinions and contrived scenarios to try to "prove" their point. The threads on this matter are mainly a testimony to a "dialogue of the deaf" in which prejudices and unsupported opinion can continue for ever (and a day).