Originally Posted by
CliveL
There was damn all wind in any direction ....
We know that - he couldn't be certain...
But engine 2 had no real internal damage - in fact the BEA report says specifically that the internal state was not such as would cause surge. Equally there is no mention of any engine failures that might give rise to a genuine fire warning from flames inside the nacelle.
Again, we know that with the benefit of hindsight and rigorous analysis, but the FE was confronted with alarms and indications consistent with fire (the fire alarm and gong sounded at 14:43:22.8) and likely damage. The surges were presumably triggered by the presence of hot gases in the vicinity of the intakes - but the FE didn't have the luxury of definitive evidence that we do. The startle effect would have been sufficient to cause a lapse in procedure on his part, but given the circumstances that would be entirely understandable.
@Lyman - the aircraft's tyre issues were not "spontaneous" in nature - at least some were precipitated by other problems (in one case the brakes locked on the takeoff roll). Not all incidents (in particular the first at Dulles
EDIT - incorrect, see below) were investigated for the cause of the tyre failure.
Note that I'm not saying your theory is impossible, simply that given the fact we know the FE was confronted by critical warning indications it is more likely he was responding to those.