Thomas Borchert wrote:

There is something very simple at work he We're judging after the fact.

You should add: Without knowing anything about it, at least in the
second case.

My guess, which is not better nor worse than anybody else's, is that
they knew exactly what the problem with the engine was, they discussed
it with their chief ingenieer, who calculated the situation with the
appropriate software, and then decided it was safe to continue and to
land with the required reserves. I don't know, but I wouldn't be
surprized if this was even an approved procedure. I'll be willing to
admit that I am wrong *if* the CAA report says so.

But I know: An emergency sells, while a security landing after a non
event does not. (Sorry, this was unfair, but I couldn't resist.)

Stefan