IIRC they were unable to shut down the outboard engine after landing, and had to get the fire department to shoot water into the engine. They did not have control over the engine the entire flight, nor did they have full control over the ailerons. Few people can really appreciate how hard it is to land an airplane with partial controls.

Yes, it could have gone bad very rapidly. It helps that they had a 35-year captain in command, and 5 pilots in the cockpit - including 2 check pilots. All accounts are that the decision making of the crew was top-notch.

And their instruments were telling them the truth.

Nobody had "omitted" documenting flight-altering automation in the training required to dodge certification requirements...

This is one of those comments that just does the perfect job of bringing the thread back into the context of the original topic.

Indeed it's astonishing to think that one of the tasks that lead to safety and victory for an aircraft which is simple (as opposed to the many which are complex) is the single point of this particular failure.

I always finding myself adding in a U in Qantas, but it's an acronym: "Queensland and Northern Territory Aerial Services"

Didn't know that either!

It breaks the most consistent rule in the English language, so no surprise that it trips people up.

Thanks, I didn’t even notice I had done that.

TIL!

> the plane was lucky to continue to fly, for instance.

It seems that the better a plane is designed, the "luckier" it gets! Strange how that works.