[Squawk 8888]

The flight was not jeapordized in any way by flying on three engines - it could have continued with two, for that matter.

The issue is not whether the plane could have made it, it's about the wisdom of starting a long flight with such a major equipment failure. Unless you are certain that the failure is isolated to the engine and won't cause malfunctions elsewhere, the most responsible course of action is to land ASAP.

[Paleo Conservative]

Unless you are certain that the failure is isolated to the engine and won't cause malfunctions elsewhere, the most responsible course of action is to land ASAP.

To land ASAP would require dumping fuel for a couple of hours to get down to maximum landing weight. An alternative to dumping fuel would have been to continue on to Chicago, Toronto or New York and switch planes. There are plenty of airports to divert to along that route in case more problems arose.

[Last Dakotan]

Unless you are certain that the failure is isolated to the engine and won't cause malfunctions elsewhere, the most responsible course of action is to land ASAP.

My thoughts too. How did they eliminate say fuel contamination? Other than that the real issue is governmental overreach.

[Gunrunner2]

Exactly

[nikos1121]

"The issue is not whether the plane could have made it, it's about the wisdom of starting a long flight with such a major equipment failure. Unless you are certain that the failure is isolated to the engine and won't cause malfunctions elsewhere, the most responsible course of action is to land ASAP."

I tend to agree, so I guess this begs the question. "why did they dicide not to do this?"

God, it sure speaks well for Boeing planes, and I understand the one coming out is even more reliable.

nick