In the brief interval between posting and coming back to say "Damn! there is something I've almost made my mind up about" came Spag's excellent and common-sense post.
Arguments about force-landings (to do or not, survivable or not, etc.) are sterile and time-wasteing. He's quite right.
But what I'd meant to come back and admit to was my growing belief (I've almost made my mind up!) that had the FE left the No.2 running, they might perhaps (peut etre for Wallabie) have made it - maybe even had a good chance of making it, but once that engine was hut down, tragedy was inevitable.
But I'm still not quite comfortable with that conclusion, but can't explain or work out why.
Maybe it's because however stupid the decision was, and however far it ran counter to the rules, proper CRM and all the rest, I find it hard to criticise the FE, sitting there with chaos exploding around him, with things going very badly awry, and with ATC telling him that they had a severe fire. Maybe the afterburner problem was at the front of his mind? Maybe he forgot his training (inexcusable, technically, but....) and thought that shutting down No.2 would make it all go away. But perhaps we can say "Yes, if that happened then he made a fatal mistake" and yet still do so with compassion, sensitivity and understanding and without condemning him for it? Calmly acknowledging what went wrong could save lives however, whereas brushing the error under the carpet could lead to more deaths in the future.
I suddenly see from Spag's post that he's a journo, too! But I'm not agreeing with him for that reason, I assure you all!
Spag! Do I know you? Who do you write and phot. for, matey? Do we have any clients or customers in common, I wonder?