[El Gato]

Anyway you are not being helpful if you are trying to spread the idea that when "the fires die they fall out of the sky"...

Go back and read what I wrote more carefully. I'm not spreading that notion. Just stating that since that there are some aircraft that would be uncontrollable with no engine power, there are backups that can take over from the engines. usually two of them. The RAT and the APU.

[Niteflyr]

I re-read what you wrote....and since I didn't think you were playing a game of semantics...I assumed when you said "another engine" you meant one of the primary engines and I'm sure you know that's what I meant and that's what most people here are talking about. I stand by my original statement that no designer is going to design a airplane (and in this case you know also I was tallking Part 135 only) and the FAA (don't know about other agencies worldwide) would not approve one that would lose primary control function after catastrophic and total PRIMARY (satisfied?) engine failure. I also stand by my admonition that being cute with semantics and scaring the flying public unnecessarily is not cool either.

For those interested here are a couple of other well-known complete engine failure incidents in modern airliners ending in safe controlled landings.

Gimli glider

Azores on empty