First, apologies to all because I have NOT read the report. For some reason, I am unable to axis the link & then when I got into a second link the report looked like 217 pages ! I just need my own thinking cleared up please by those who have read the report. Looks from gleaning other posts that the aircraft wound up with thrust problems at top of climb which lead the crew to investigate and the upshot was one engine stuck at high thrust ( uncontrollable, then) and the other stuck at low thrust. Essentially, a 50% loss of available power. ICAO definition is that this would be a Mayday & divert to the nearest suitable alternate.
I am with the RR engineer on this. Continuing to destination on one engine is not a good decision if suitable en-route alternates are available. For those who don't get it, what if the remaining engine quits ? BOAC does get it, as usual.
I would be very worried about an engine stuck at high thrust and the other at idle. Nearest suitable alternate would be the longest runway available with fabbo weather. If the engine really was "stuck" at high thrust, what consideration was given to the landing. What config ? Shut it down on touch down ? Shut it down just before touch ? And, Lordy Lordy, if it is not your day and a GA is necessary, how are you going to do that ? I would certainly want an obstacle free GA area. Straight ahead to whatever alt you like would be something I would be working on very clearly.
I would be very interested in the influence Base Engineers had on the Commander's decision making.
Tough calls on all and a terriffic discussion on "What would YOU have done" type threads. I offer my thoughts for clarification & possible discussion and re-iterate that I have not read the report. Apologies if I have got anything wrong as a result.