JerryB:
Spot on NSEU. A relatively simple theory usually proves to be the correct one. Forget about all these shlush theories or EMI/ESP etc. The only problem is that we are unlikely to ever find out for sure.
Not a particularly unusual post on this long long long thread JerryB, and I don't mean to pick you out in particular, but paraphrasing what it you (and lots of other posters) say "We don't yet know the answer, we may never know the answer, but I have an idea in my head and I want to dismiss all the other possible answers".
AAIB has given NO indication in any of their reports as to the cause of the [in/ac]cident. They have noticed a safety issue regarding engine shutdown after the event, and have issued advice. They have noticed cavitation on the pumps, but also said "
The manufacturer assessed both pumps as still being capable of delivering full fuel flow." (page 4 of S1/2008). They have noted all computer/control systems appeared to be functioning normally. In short they don't know (or at least haven't given any opinions in the publicly available reports).
Occams Razor (simplest explanation is the correct one) does often apply, but in safety investigations - particularly those where the cause is not found quickly - it is often a case of multiple events leading to the outcome.
If we are going to have a discussion about the possible causes, of which the fuel flow discussion is highly valuable, then let's talk about all the possible causes, unless there is evidence to the contrary.
So please let's all stop all these "let's all stop talking about X" posts!
(and yes, the oxymoron of this statement was intentional in an effort to inject some humour, but the sentiment was genuine!).