The flight crew will have seen the damage and would have it in the back of their mind the possibility of secondary damage to the other engine, fuselage, wing or hydraulic systems. Get the thing on the ground!
Well, well. All that whoo whaa about the advantage of a 4 pot over two pots ….
If there is concern about secondary damage to another engine, then the modern 4 pots (if “modern” can still be applied to them) are no better than Comets, IL62s or Concords: Because you argue that when one breaks, it could take the other one with it. So basically they return to 2 pots! Considering damage to other systems, fuselage or wing, the same applies. If this could really lead to a permanent argument, the authorities would have to start applying ETOPS to 4 pots as well.
Additionally, with all of the above and especially your statement “Get the thing on the ground”, we would have to re-evaluate the Qantas 380 incident and take away all the awards from the crew, because with your arguments, they’d have violated common sense by staying airborne so long to work out all periphery ECAMs and do all the (imho futile) calculations.
It’s funny that with the AF 380 that was still fully controllable, albeit one pot less, the decision to land asap on a remote emergency airport, with icing and apparently overweight, with many operational and discomfort problems, is deemed sound. But in Qantas case, with a heavily wounded 380, one pot exploded, a hole in the wing, two other pots not obeying and fuel not under control, the decision to stay airborne for almost 4 hours is deemed sound as well.
Yes, both landed and no one got hurt. Good job, agreed, but there's room for debate .....