MD88 FLT CREW HAS ENG MALFUNCTION AND DIVERTS FOR LNDG.

Narrative

WE WERE CRUISING AT FL320 ENRTE TO ATL WHEN WE RECEIVED A MESSAGE INDICATING A L OIL STRAINER CLOG. THE NON-NORMAL PROC HAD US REDUCE PWR ON THE L ENG TO EXTINGUISH THE MESSAGE. UNFORTUNATELY; THE MESSAGE CONTINUED EVEN AT IDLE PWR. THE PROC ALLOWED US TO CONTINUE OPERATING THE ENG AS LONG AS THERE WERE NO OTHER ABNORMAL ENG INDICATIONS. ONCE THE PROC WAS COMPLETE; I DIRECTED THE FO (WHO WAS THE PF) TO COORDINATE A DSCNT WITH ATC WHILE I CONTACTED THE COMPANY TO COORD A DIVERSION. UPON CONTACTING THE COMPANY; I WAS PUT IN TOUCH WITH THE MAINT COORDINATOR AND THE DISPATCHER. THEY WANTED ME TO DIVERT TO LGA BECAUSE THEY HAD MAINT AVAILABLE THERE AND COULD ACCOMMODATE THE PAX. I TOLD THEM I WOULD NOT GO TO LGA BECAUSE OF THE SHORT RWYS (WE WERE OVERWT AND WOULD BE USING LESS THAN FULL FLAPS DUE TO 1 ENG AT IDLE). I OFFERED SOME OTHER POSSIBILITIES SUCH AS JFK; EWR; THEY SAID NONE OF THOSE WOULD WORK WELL AND INSTEAD WANTED ME TO GO BACK TO BOS. I RELUCTANTLY AGREED AS I COULD THINK OF NO OPERATIONAL REASON THAT THIS WOULD NOT WORK. WE THEN COORD A DIVERT BACK TO BOS AND RECEIVED EXCELLENT HANDLING FROM ATC. THE DSCNT; APCH; AND LNDG WERE UNEVENTFUL. LATER; AFTER RECEIVING SOME MUCH NEEDED CREW REST; I FILED AN OPS RPT WITH MY COMPANY. I ALSO RESEARCHED OUR OPERATIONAL GUIDANCE CONCERNING DIVERTS CAUSED BY MAINT IRREGULARITIES. I UNDERSTOOD THAT BY FARS; REQUIRES A DIVERT IF I HAVE AN ENG FAILURE (OR SHUT DOWN AND ENG ON A 2 ENG ACFT) TO THE NEAREST SUITABLE ARPT. IT IS ALSO OUR COMPANY POLICY TO TREAT AN ENG OPERATING AT IDLE PWR IN THE SAME MANNER. WITH THAT IN MIND; I FEEL THAT I SHOULD HAVE BEEN MORE FORCEFUL IN INSISTING ON A DIVERSION TO A CLOSER ARPT. WHILE TAKING CARE OF OUR PAX IS IMPORTANT; IT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AN OVERRIDING CONCERN. IF CONFRONTED WITH THIS SITUATION AGAIN; I WILL INSIST ON DIVERTING TO A CLOSER ARPT.