The issue of redundancy was raised early in this thread, by several posters, in a thoughtful, questioning (and polite!) manner. A few responded helpfully, but a similar number were "somewhat" dismissive of the idea that there may be a fundamental flaw, either in concept or design (or a combination of both) which compromises the overall idea of redundancy in this, and other aircraft.
Having monitored the official reports coming out of this accident, it is clear that the spotlight is just as firmly fixed on the "collateral damage" of the engine failure and its consequences, as it is on the engine failure itself.
The spotlight is also beginning to focus on the need for professional aircrew to have the skills and capacity, individually and as a crew, to deal with any eventuality thrown their way.
Both of these outcomes are very good news for the avaition industry.
Final note: IMO in any branch of engineering, any belief that you have elimiinated the possiblity of failure ["any one failure or set of failures can be survived"] is asking for a swift kicking from Mr Murphy & Laws...
Absolutely, anybody remember the ship...what was the name...Titanic??