Did you not get the memo about the BA 747 making an emergency landing for low fuel in Scotland becuase they went from LAX to England on 3 engines? That's like what, a 13 hour flight? I'm sure they never had that mindset. Or how about the Air Transat flight that ran out of gas? I think their "numbers" weren't right on the money before the engines flamed out. Or how about the Avianca flight? Bet the thought never crossed their minds either. It's not ridiculous becuase it's happened in the past, and I'm sure it'll happen again in the future. To err is human...
I got all the memos. And obviously spent a bit more time than you in trying to understand them.
Your first example precisely illustrates the point I'm making. At some point during that flight it became apparent that landing at EGLL was no longer an option, so the crew did something else. They landed elsewhere. They didn't just continue on because they "figured" they would make it.
What Air Transat has to do with this I'm not sure. You are aware of why they ran out of fuel, right?
As for Avianca, they most certainly did know about their situation, and were trying to do something about it. Unfortunately, they weren't able to communicate their predicament clearly enough to get the help they needed.
The BA flight in question suffered from no such handicap. They made no mention of any impaired fuel state, no request for clearance to a closer alternate, no PAN/MAYDAY whatsoever.
Once more, to suggest that the 3 guys in the pointy end of the BA jet sat on their hands and let a fuel exhaustion event overtake them just because, well, "they were trying to make it", is ludicrous.
To err is most certainly human. But the error of indifference to fuel qty after a 10 hour flight is not one that is routinely made, and it wasn't in this case.
All this is moot, anyway, as the AAIB prelim makes no mention of the engines being inoperative. In fact, just the opposite seems to be the case.