Originally Posted by
Easy Street
I sympathise with this analysis, but the attempt to return to Kandahar from near-overhead Kabul in these circumstances does rather suggest that the crew was not calmly and rationally assessing their situation.
It is hard to know what the crew were thinking or planning to do without CVR data. Generally speaking though, in a modern ETOPS-capable twin an engine failure in the cruise does not necessitate an immediate diversion to the nearest suitable airfield. The performance planning and aircraft system design is to enable a continuation of safe flight to the final destination. The loss of a single power plant is supposed to be a somewhat benign event.
In this case the aircraft was at FL400+, with heavy mission systems down the back, full of fuel and
only230 miles away from main base. Yes, they could have stuck the aircraft on its ear for Bagram or Kabul (for what they expected to be a single-engine landing) but that would have left them doing a heavyweight recovery at a high-altitude airfield (particularly so at Bagram) with no thrust reverser available. [NB there is no fuel-dump system on the GEx as its performance category and ETOPS design does not require one - burning down to a desired landing weight is the only option.]
At the start of the mishap sequence a 30 minute cruise descent, for a single-engine recovery to the lower altitude of Kandahar, probably seemed sensible and when things went seriously wrong they did appear to change their plans. I would be tempted to give them the benefit of the doubt given the absence of CVR data.