Thanks for pointing that out. how nice to see a totally independant opinion supports the crew's actions!
It was mildly upsetting seeing the inferences that the crew were browbeaten, or 'influenced', by BA management into continuing. People must understand these were safety minded pilots in no mood to be forced what they didn't want to do, and no BA pilot I know would ever be 'obliged' to take an action they considered unsafe. Anybody who has flown the 747 knows the mechanics of engine stalls and flying the beast on 3 engines. The crew did exactly what I would have done, and I flew them for 8 years (and the Classic 747 for 10 years before that). The outcome has shown that the go decision has been vindicated. I will always accept that many pilots don't like it and would maybe have done otherwise, but they must accept they have no experience of the -400. There is no airline flying today with as extensive a history of longhaul operations as BA, and as experienced pilots, and with a 747-400 it was the right thing to do, in my opinion. The option of dump and return seemed to be the favoured opinion by many here- understand fuel jettison (pouring about 40 tonnes of raw fuel into the vortex) carries additional risks of its own. Landing en route ( a long way off route) would have been dreadfully inconvenient and not solved much. Decisions like that are what pilots are paid to take.