It. is all in the data.Indeed.Just read it..
Nothing wrong with
No2.
Uptrim No1 for no reason.
Bleed off No1 correct,but TQ NOT
increasing! Objective TQ is a calculation only.
2,15 Second after
incomplete uptrim of No1 autofeather on the good engine No2.
It's all in the data, except for why #2 Engine detected Flame Out, from the data it does indeed look like there was nothing wrong with #2, however the EEC thought there was a Flameout.
Everything, airframe wise, worked as it should, Flameout detected so #2 engine reduced to idle without any PLA movement and autofeathered, #1 Engine Objective TQ increased to 100% and the engine responded, the uptrim of #1 was due to #2 reducing.
#1 engine followed exactly what was commanded, the crew reduced #1 PLA and the engine followed, why they did this is the mystery, the data shows no evidence of an engine stall or surge.
During the decrease of #1 engine PLA they also increased the #2 PLA, which at this point did nothing as the engine was at idle, my thought is they either had not noticed the #2 engine producing no power or had firewalled the power lever in an attempt to get some thrust back.
Someone also mentioned the spikes on the TQ data, I have seen this before on other aircraft and believe it's due to the signal being zero on that channel, if you notice the Oil px it does exactly the same when the #1 engine is shut down.
I find it hard to find a reason why they would shut down #1 engine if they knew there was an issue with the #2, even if the #1 was stalling, surging, making noises or anything else, so close to an airport, over urban terrain.
The only exception would be fire from #1, however the gradual reduction in PLA does not show standard engine fire procedures.
They either didn't know #2 was the trouble or if they did then they moved all the wrong engine levers.