Intruder - No we do know it for a fact. The AAIB don't make statements that are not grounded in hard fact and the aircrafts Quick Access Recorder has already been analysed which will have all the data on thrust lever angle and engine response. If I balls up in BA I can go into the office and ask for replay of my flight. On the PC they will show me a full run down of the incident, with a visual flight sim style picture of the aircraft path along with full representation of the instruments, FMAs and control positions. That data was all available to the AAIB. Are you suggesting they ignored that and issued a statement based solely on crew reports that they might later have to retract? You really think they are that dumb?
I know nothing of the AAIB, but if they are anything like the US NTSB they consider politics and public relations almost as much as safety and fact when they report. Unfortunately, they are nothing like the military Mishap Investigation Boards (of which I have served on 5) which are largely immune to politics (until the higher-level endorsements come in) and public perception.
I am also aware that a simple preliminary statement or "Initial Report" like the one they released cannot include all the details known only collectively by a relatively large number of people.
Since an initial report is necessarily based on VERY little hard information, compared to that which will become available later, there is no real risk in making a minor misstatement (e.g., "engines" vs engine) or failing to include other modifiers (e.g., "respond" [as expected])...
I don't know why you feel it necessary to hang your hat on a single statement taken solely from "Initial indications"...
Sevenstroke - C'mon, do you really think that level of detail is going to be in the public domain 2 days after the incident. What is it with you and Intruder's head in the sand attitude to a highly regarded accident investigation body? They've already said the engines (plural) failed to respond, you're still trying to nail it on the crew?
I don't know where you see my "head in the sand"... I've read a substantial number of the 400+ prior messages, plus the AAIB Initial Report, plus several news articles before making any comment whatsoever. There are many valid theories out here, but not all of them will be shown correct in the end.
What YOU seem to fail to realize is that if the engines were at a nominal approach power setting at 600', then even if they failed to respond at all until touchdown they would still have been at that same power setting, and the approach would have been nominal at least until the [attempted] power reduction before/in the flare!
I'm not trying to nail anything on anyone (except maybe the rulemakers that seem to think 160 kt to 4 NM on approach is a "good thing" that doesn't adversely impact safety). From all I can see, the Pilots handled a critical situation extremely well! Now we have to wait to find out ALL the reasons they got into that situation in the first place!