Old Fella,
To suggest otherwise shows a lack of respect for the Captain and his company.
Your whole post is spot on. Everybody else wind your neck in, it had nothing to do with you.
My immediate thoughts would be where do I go when the second engine fails, ( hautemaude
) much rather be over 'friendly' territory, with more available airfield options, than certain territory en route to Dubai, even if Dubai could change the engine. Burning fuel down to landing weight whilst still continuing towards ones' eventual destination would be the best economical choice - but are you more interested in economics than your safety ?
Ones' immediate problem when an engine fails, is not what height and speed can I maintain on 3, but what can I do on 2 ? ( apply that philosophy to a Boeing 777 and see where it gets you. ) And don't tell me it can't happen just because the statistics say it is unlikely. Why did the first one fail ? Statistics would say that that is highly unlikely, too.
I know little of the BA 747 3-eng LAX-LHR affair, so will keep my mouth shut, but first impressions suggest that it was an ill conceived decision, if Boeing wanted a 3-eng 747 they'd have designed one.
No Captain is ever going to be satisfied until he can reply to the Flt. Eng, telling him that No. 8 has failed, with the response ' which side ? "
ExSp33db1rd. ( ExCapta1n, too )