[FreedomCalls]

Unexpectedly losing an engine from an unknown failure which may be ticking seconds to a further systemic collapse is not the same as simply starting off the day without starting an engine.

So why is it more safe to fly circles over the Pacific for two hours with the added risk of dumping your full fuel load than it is to fly for two hours overland towards your destination? After the then two hours of completely normal operation, why not press on? The FAA regs allow it. The CAA regs allow it. The Boeing 744 flight manual allows recommends it. Any additional problems would have manifested itself by the third hour. Indeed, if any additional problems developed, they were never in an ETOPS 120-minute situation. They were never more than 60 miles away from a divert airfield on that particular flight route.

[sam_paine]

All well and good, but that's a different argument. These points I have no complaint against. But what you asked first off was ridiculous. I'll continue to refresh your memory as long as needed....

How is crossing the Atlantic with three engines (a 747 with one out) any less safe than crossing the Atlantic with two engines (on a two-engine A310 or 777)?

Again, a 777 not manifesting any failures is MUCH SAFER than any other 4- or 2-engine aircraft with an undiagnosed failure in progress.

If you meant only to argue that flying on with 3-of-4 in this case was safer than landing immediately on 3-of-4, then you could've just stuck to that argument.

As it is, you strayed off with a half-cocked analogy to twin-engined planes that failed.