Cockney steve.
"Irrespective of fuel-levels ,a "dead-engine" scenario is VERY possible
. . . . . . And later . . . . .
IN real life, As airspeed drops, so will the RAT's output...that presents a real problem, as the likelihood of both batteries failing is currently , statistically very high....2 holes in the cheese are ALREADY lined-up."
I don't agree with you that a double engine failure is "VERY possible", it is an extremely rare event. Especially one where a restart isn't possible. Also to say the likelyhood of both batteries failing is "statistically very high" is also simply untrue.
The 787 has had two individual battery incidents. I'm not sure how you decide a double engine failure or a double battery failure are at all likely. It's a bit sensationalist to suggest you think the aircraft might suffer a double engine failure and a double battery or even single battery failure on the same flight. You also don't know what speed the RAT will provide electric braking down to. I don't know why you're contradicting the Boeing statements about the RAT when you don't seem to have any relevant technical knowledge of it whatsoever.
The same kind of tiny probability leading to a double engine failure and then an unrelated failure of another crucial system would leave most aircraft in a very poor state to land and stop on a runway. A similar example might be a 757/767 suffering a double engine failure followed by a double hydraulic failure. Sure it's possible but let's not pretend its likely or some kind of design fault.