At the risk of repetition, the "extremely remote" refers to total oil loss. Of the events last year, and before, one was an oil loss (of the significance we are talking about - not slight leaks) and that was due to a combination of studs being inappropriately maintained and the choice of material used (since changed.)
Other sections of Part/CS-29 refer to other aspects of MGB reliability, but the one being quoted refers soley to total Oil Loss. I think it has already been established how that section has been dealt with.
The pressure expected after a single pump failure is quoted as about 45psi. Now its 5psi or 17psi in another post
Outhouse, that is a mistake in the written material (and hence the simulators) that has been around since the introduction. With no check valve installed (ala -101, -102 and -104) the pressure is about 5-7 psi, with the check valve installed (-103) it is about 17 psi. Both of those pressure are, although within the red range,
absolutely sufficient to ensure MGB lubrication. Certainly for long enough to land safely.
I'm trying to keep my posts on this subject as factual as possible in an attempt to correct errors and misconceptions, without getting into the debate about what's right and wrong. If others chose to do so, then at least try to get your facts correct before launching off into emotional diatribes that do none of us a favour. I have as much of a vested interest as the next man - I'm about to climb into a 92 this morning!