I can't think of a single twin accident due to independent power loss on both engines, yet it took me literally seconds so come up with a 4 engine accident due to independent power loss on two engines (it helped that I was involved in the investigation )
I'd like to thank you a second time tdracer.
You are able to sustain with experience what i tried to bring up concerning this incident.
It is certainly possible and can even make sense to continue with a 4-pod after loss of one. I simply wanted to point out that the risk involved might be higher than a lot of fellow pros insinuate on this pages. So extended continuation should maybe be considered more conservatively.
Lomeopaso stated rightfully that is is NOT a matter of comparison 2 vs 4 engines. A twin is on emergency when losing one, a 4-pot is in an abnormal situation and not in that presumed cosy "continue" situation. Your quote underlines that.
One additional word to the mentioned monitoring and advising by the Tech departments while on abnormal situations or with tech troubles: Every advise we get on ACARS today has a nice footer with a disclaimer about responsibility. This leaves me with some mixed feelings about remote advise, not to say control .....
Up there we are still alone in matter of decision making. Many companies like to pretend that they only advise us, but in effect many of them apply more pressure than help. But when the s#!t hits the fan they leave us out in the rain.
tdracers comment should make some of us reconsider. A 4-holer is a more comfortable aircraft to operate than a twin. But even a 4-holer gets into a
abnormal situation when it loses one pot.