I'm very surprised by certain aspects of the preliminary report and would love to get some clarification. My understanding is that the PIC and FO are both very senior pilots from the same airline (hence culture), the PIC being a very senior line officer (for lack of a better term).
From the report I got no sense of any command presence, no radio call, no briefing/statement of intent to the FO or LAME...I find that both confusing and disturbing. This event unfolded over minutes....not seconds. Once the balloon went up I would have expected the captain to exercise
command authority? They specifically mention the rudder issue but no mention of any briefing on mechanical or other issues and emergency procedures? If this has been a "professional" flight for the two of them wouldn't you brief the takeoff and then wouldn't the PIC clearly state his intentions when
the engine failed? My very limited understanding is that you always brief alternative options for engine or other failure. Obviously in modern commercial multi-engine jets your expectation is to be able to return and land but in single engine and some GA light twins that's not always possible. I'd assume in
an older plane like this there was/should be a clear assessment of what options would be available for an engine failure outlining both the optimal return path and the best alternative for ditching if that's the only option.
That had to be the PIC's responsibility and it needed to be done quickly with whatever input he required from the FO or LAME. The lack of a quick and concise summery and course of action from the PIC is perplexing to say the least....