Who told the crew of BA268, that:
1) There has not been an ingestion of bird/s, pieces of tyre or any other foreign object by the engine number 2?
2) The engine had not been severely damaged?
3) The flames (many feet long) and the sparks (incandescent pieces of metal) did not invest some vital part of the aicraft?
4) One or more of the tyres did not blow out?
5) The cause of the explosions had not been an explosive device?
1) No visual sighting of birds on the take off roll, normal tyre pressure indications on EICAS may have been a clue. You could assume FOD, but in flight and on mulitple engines? Unlikely.
2) Absence of vibration is a big clue. These things windmill at high speed, physical damage to the engine tends to lead to abnormal vibration levels.
3) Such as what? The engines are out on a pylon. Fuselage damage would lead to pressurisation problems. Fuel tank damage would lead to fuel loss. Hydraulic damage would be evident from EICAS. Damage to the flaps/slats would only be evident on extension, so does it matter whether that occurs at LAX or LHR?
4) See one. EICAS would indicate a tire blow out. Damage to the stab would only be revealed by stab/elevator control problems or fuel leakage from the stab tank.
5)Now you're stretching credulity. Multiple explosive devices? In the engine? Leading to repeated explosions? With no visible external damage to the engine? And no damage to engine probes so no loss of engine data to the EICAS? C'mon.....!
People need to be realistic here. Surges were commonplace in the past. They still occur. People are trained for them. Just because something is less common doesn't mean it's become more dangerous, nor does it give us a reason to start fantastic thought processes about sabotage, FOD, or other weird .