Originally Posted by
snanceki
@bsieker and Infrequentflyer.
I was merely stating the importance of the words Indicated and that the fuel needed to be in the wing tanks in order to supply the engines.
I'm neither supporting or denying that the aircraft ran out of fuel due to lack of fuel in the wing tanks. I'm just surprised that the wording used seems to have left this whole issue "open".
I don't think it has been left as open as that, whilst they have been careful to say that the fuel was
indicated to be in the wing tanks, they also haven't said (or implied) anywhere that those indications are suspect. [In my view stating that the fuel figures are indicated does not imply in itself that they disbelieve the figures]. We know that they cannot have figures for fuel-on-landing from post-landing measurements because of the leakage.
Also in the report they
have said that the leakage
was through the spar valves, which means (if I understand the fuel system correctly) that the fuel was from the main wing tanks, not the CWT.
both of the engine spar valves were found to be OPEN, allowing the fuel leak evident at the accident site.