Very emotive issue.Its worth a revisit.The intent of the specific regulation,indeed any reg,is contained in the main paragraph and not any sub-clause and I think that was the point.Yes,thats right,in essence the FAA does not distinguish between aircraft type when mandating a diversion following an engine failure.The privileges granted in any sub-clause never obviate the need to comply with the general instruction contained within the main paragraph.Rather it is designed to afford greater flexibility to the pilot-in-command based on any perceived advantage,in this case greater redundancy.In this example,the sub-clause would relieve the pilot from an immediate return and allow him to continue toward his destination,landing at a preferred engineering base without the need for fuel-dumping.And that is all.If he was already mid-Atlantic when the engine failure occurred,it would probably,but not necessarily,entitle him to continue to destination.
But no regulation can address the real issue here;how did it look to the passengers?