Jackonicko, BEagle and beaver eager
I guess you are missing my point, probable my fault becasue I am not good enough expressing what I mean in writing.
My oint about the FE was in relation to New Bloke's comments to the Teneriffe accident.
I have to admit that I am no expert in jets, nor will I probably ever be. BUT from commen sense it's easy to deduct that large jet aircraft are not designed to land on rough fields (as opposed to light aircrafts and even some larger turboprops). They are certified to be able to keep flying,
provided, a) procedures are followed and b) limitations are observed. Not downhill and no reason to consider an off field landing.
On the otherhand, if not complying with a) and b) there is almost certainly spelled disaster in case of an emergency. A crash, controlled or not, will most likely cause everyone to die. The Sioux city accident was not a crash but a very hard landing
on paved surface and even then half of the died.
Observe limitations, comply with procedures, keep it flying and your fine. This also included that the FE should
not have shut down an engine uncommanded, just to clear up that misunderstanding, that was not what I meant. What he (and/or the F/O)
should have done was refused to fly, as should the F/O or FE in Teneriffe (using whatever means possible including mutiny).