As I thought, you aren't paying attention. The AA191 flight did not crash because of hydraulic failure. Although the engine separation caused a leak, there was enough hydraulic control that the plane could have flown for another 30 mintues. It crashed because the interlock to the LED on the port wing was supported by hydraulic pressure alone, and the pylon separation very locally reduced that pressure causing the LED to retract from the force of the slipstream. The result of that was that the port wing would now stall at a higher speed. When the jet slowed down to turn around, the port wing stalled, and began to flip the plane since the starboard wing did not stall. If either the pilot had recognized the stall, or kept the speed up, those passengers would not have died on that flight.
The UA232 crash happened because all three lines went through the same area of the plane. This section was destroyed when the #2 engine blew. Thus, it didn't matter how many lines they had on the plane, the fact that they ran through the same spot did them in. BTW, again, a wing stalled just before landing causing the plane to roll and crash, IIRC.
So, I maintain, and I hope that you're listening this time, that the planes crashing had nothing to do with the number of hydraulic lines on the jet.
To the others on this thread, I apologize that I have taken this tangent from the DL Emergency post.