>>...in this case, with the information presented, unless the crew could have gotten additional thrust from number 3 engine, it might have been better to land short of the runway NOTstalled, than to try to "stretch" the approach to the runway and STALL.<<
Hmmm, perhaps a better idea, jondc9, would be for the crew to actually pay attention to what the hell they were doing.
Ok, as I understand it, one engine had been shut down.
So far, so good.
Normally, on a four engine type, the one engine inop landing procedure is the same as all engines operating...at least this was true on the 4-engine (and three engine as well) types that I have flown.
Now, if the crew truly believed that another engine was either failed or not producing adequate thrust, then the two engine procedure should absolutely be used, which requires a reduced flap selection for approach/landing.
This is pretty basic stuff, it seems to me.
I truly believe the USAF had better have a really close look at their training procedures, as apparently the ones they have now (if we consider this accident) simply don't cut the mustard.