Re. Unctuous posts #156 (Jan28/05:23) and #79 (Jan26/16:34)
Unctuous, you are now weakening the credibility of your hypothesis - quite unnecessarily - by being selective in your quoting of my criticism, and ignoring that from A380focal. [See both on #141 (Jan27/16:14)]
Your case is based on possible fuel blockages in components of the engine fuel system. You should now admit that your original argument in #79 contained a genuine misunderstanding of the rôles of sensors Ps3 and P3b in supplying air pressure data (NOT fuel pressure data) to the FADEC on the GE90 engine.
Quote from your #79:
f. In this theory there's no suggestion of any blockage of the main HP or LP fuel supply lines. The blockages would have been in the FADEC's reference port lines (only). As the GE engine's AD at this link says: "...simultaneous Loss of thrust control events on both engines installed on the Boeing 777 series aircraft due to common mode threats, such as certain atmospheric conditions that may result in ice in the Ps3 or P3B pressure sensing system and causing corrupted signals to the FADEC in both engines."
g. It's not just probable, but obvious therefore from the FAA's concerns, that a "corrupted signal" will cause a FADEC lockup. Why "wax" and not just ice? Water in suspension in fuel tends to stay that way, however once a fuel "waxes" it takes on an icy constituency, and a component of the mass will be water (in ice form).
(Unquote)
That a blockage in any pressure-sensing system is likely to corrupt the data received at the FADEC is bleedin' obvious, even to your most uninformed reader. Any comparison of the mechanism of rain freezing in an air-pressure sensor with waxy fuel blocking a fuel sensor, however, was plainly fatuous.
If you had known they were air-pressure sensors, you would not have attempted to make the comparison.
If and when you are prepared to admit that gaff, many of us non-engineers may be prepared to take your interesting arguments more seriously.