There are many routes where you will not be able to get down to 10,000. They will have some form of ‘escape’ route, that will be available (and which we used to program into the FMCs as secondary routes). The escape route will get to either somewhere you can land, or to a track where you can descend, but they will not necessarily immediately get you all that low. You may have to remain at 18-22,000’ for a while. The were most common on the Hong Kong to UK flights over China, and also Afghanistan.
No, engine failure and loss of an engine are considered separately. Combining the two, at the wrong part of oceanic flight could well have you going for a swim. The only alternative, is to descend to about 20,000, and to live with whatever happens re the oxygen. The Southwest, engine plus window loss scenario, is not planned or catered for.
Yes. There is a tool that the cabin crew use, but I suspect it could be done with a pen. Never tried.
This is what I’m bemused by, in this incident. The should be a number of minutes between the pack failing, and the cabin reaching the auto deploy height (which I think is 13,800’). The time available for the descent should have precluded the need for the masks. But, from what we’re hearing here, the masks actually deployed right at the start of the descent. So...either the descent was not entered promptly after the pack shutdown, or the cabin climbed unreasonably fast (which is pretty much impossible without structural issues), or, the masks were accidentally deployed at the start of the descent instead of waiting to try to beat the automatic deployment.
You don’t need to deploy the masks at 10,000. You can wait for 13-14.
From the passenger perspective, there wouldn’t have been any real difference between a necessary or unnecessary deployment. We would need to know the cabin altitude profile to know for sure.