Re Pinkman 'no flow' hypothesis
As a humble driver, airframe, I am not qualified to judge the hydrocarbon physics involved here, but it seems to me these speculations don't go all the way in answering the question 'why only BA 038?' and 'why then?'. The fuel temp figures quoted by Chambudzi are well within mormal operating ranges for jet A-1 (but not jet A), and wouldn't by themselves have required a descent. They were also 7 hours earlier, so slightly lower temperature? But in any case, BA 038 would have spent a long time in the descent to Heathrow, during which the fuel would have warmed somehwat. This descent included apparently a hold at Lambourne, which would have required about the same EPR as final approach, and it appears to have done that with no problem (the flight was previously 'uneventful' according to the AAIB). By the time it got to finals the fuel would have been warmer still. Although it has been somewhat discredited since, Unctuous' theory about contamination in the fuel control system rather than the fuel flow per se seems to be closer to an explanation; my (1970) copy of 'the Jet Engine' shows a labyrinth of fuel tappings in the hydromechanical fuel control systems of the era, are they all now gone in this digital age? These tappings would presumably be more sensitive to contamination as fuel isn't actually flowing at speed through them. Just a thought.