Originally Posted by Smudger
Off thread, perhaps, but the argument about 3/4 engines is a moot point in the case of the BA continuing across the pond having had a fire, albeit extinguished. The problem I have is how did the flight deck crew know what damage had occurred? As I see it they launched off across the water knowing that further problems could arise with possibly catastrophic results, but they did it all the same.
From what you say, I suspect that you may (like me) be SLF. I'd strongly recommend reading the whole of
the report (about 1.1 MB PDF). It's not long, and it shouldn't take more than an hour or so even if you're starting with no technical knowledge and you absorb all of the detail that's there. (I know the experts here could probably read and digest the whole thing in 15 minutes!)
The report deals with all the things that the crew investigated and considered before deciding that they didn't have to go straight back to LAX. (As the report says, a surge is not a particularly damaging event.) They did not immediately then "launch across the water". They continued across the continent, watching the aircraft carefully all the way - and there were plenty of diversion airfields along there if anything did crop up to suggest damage. They then re-evaluated the situation before beginning the oceanic crossing, to decide whether continuation was warranted.
So it wasn't either a hasty decision to continue, nor was it a once-and-for-all decision to either go or stop. I'm personally pleased to see that the AAIB finds no fault with the decision to continue.