That graph is really disturbing reading.
Seems that just as ENG1 idle rev was selected, ENG2 accelerated from approach ~1.09 EPR to ~1.28 EPR and then stabilized to around ~1.19 EPR.
ENG2 TLA indicated CLB for the entire period.
Interesting to note that full manual braking action (disregarding the most likely accidential and small applications of brakes during the initial landing roll) was initiated at 18:48:34, just 7 seconds after nosewheel touchdown was registered.
I am starting to think that this was not a pilot error. Why would ENG2 accelerate, even though it was left to CLB. Shouldn't the Thrust Lock have just locked it to ~1.09EPR. Now instead, it accelerated to nearly ~1.3 EPR which is approximately what you would see as CLB power in those circumstances. No wonder they couldn't stop.
Obviously huge amounts of right rudder were also applied to overcome the thrust asymmetry. Maybe the ENG2 didn't respond to TL positioning? Obviously their previous landing was made also with the other TR inop, and they had no problems.
What is also disturbing (or the FDR is not telling the truth due to some underlying problem in the TLAs?) to see is that in their 2nd previous landing they only set the TL2 to IDLE (while reversing TL1 as should). But in the previous landing (ie just before the accident) they reversed both TLs as one would with both TRs operating?
Was there a reason they changed their way of handling the TL2 during the day? First they would pull it to IDLE, then they would pull it all the way to REV, and then finally they left it at CLB (that's what the FDR claims at least).
Tero