I'll stick with you, Yamaha - no reason at all for anyone not to 'question' the way things are done, as long as the 'questioning' remans reasonable and in the correct forum, and I believe that is the 'intention' of pprune. If indeed you were on that ?Hapag Lloyd' a/c I can understand your concerns, and whether you are a greengrocer or ace pilot matters not.
The problem is you 'queered your pitch' at post #4, although you did retract your 'speculative scaremongering' at post #8. Let's compound the mistake by having so-called 'professional pilots' coming in with all sorts of questionable info about where it happened etc. Then some of them aggravate the situation by talking tosh about how far you are allowed to be from an airport - that in fact has nothing to do with an in-flight emergency but relates to route planning. My post #28 gives Boeing/FAR guidance on landing at the 'nearest suitable' and you will note leaves the Captain
discretion in the choice. 'Todders' post (#50) is slightly misleading as it comes from another section concerning any 'non-normal procedure' such as flap failure, etc, whereas the 'nearest suitable' section definition is different and as you can see generally points to 'time' as a significant factor.
As I said at post#28 and #41, the various 'parties' will look at this, rest assured.
Taking your latest comments:-
Pilots of course have full command and authority and do not bow to commercial pressure I hear. Yet we have discussions on fuel load. Of course pilots always take enough fuel. So why do aircraft land with remaining fuel below the legal minimum then?
- of course they don't. Your own claimed experience tells you that. In that case although they probably departed with enough fuel, the decision to continue was made for 'other' (company pressure?) reasons. Departing with 'enough' fuel is a difficult definition. We
are allowed to leave with less than required for the normal route with the option of 'reviewing progress as we go', so that may be why crews are arriving with less than 'legal'. We often have to leave with less than
desired. En-route diversion is always an option. Often performance factors limit the amount you can lift and you may not have what you want.
Of course pilots wouldn't fly an unsafe aircraft. Yet engineers claim they do.
- sadly aviation history is littered with examples where they have. HOWEVER, professionally run UK airlines do not put pressure on crews to fly 'unsafe' aircraft. This is not so everywhere in the world. There are innumerable 'failures' which can occur with no effect on safety.
So, in summary - as I see it, the decision in this case was sound and will, I suspect, be supported by company and authority. Had the wing been 'falling apart' due damage it would probably have been found to be the wrong decision. I endorse your right to ask questions, but ask that they are based on facts - although those are often difficult to establish.