It never ceases to amaze me how "creative" individuals can be.
After all, this is the purpose behind brainstorming!
Only problem is that each "theory" has to be "understood" and either moved forward to the "possible" file or discarded due to some misunderstanding/lack of knowledge by the proposer.
I was particularly "impressed" by your "definitive" conclusion that there was adequate fuel on board after resolving the frost pattern on the underwing from a photo a few seconds before the crash landing.
Now the various "theories" put forward in the last few pages of posts, many seem to focussed around the cause of the "restriction" without any data in support of the nature of any such restriction.
In order to try to get you guys to be creative in a slightly different direction I wonder what are your thoughts are on the "size" of the restriction?
By this I invite your energy into determining the following:
1. What fuel consumption (flight idle?) would exist on approach prior to the incident. Ltrs/sec or whatever.
I don't have any idea what these big fan jets consume even at idle but its certainly "significant"!
2. What capacity (volume) exists in the fuel lines between pickup and engine spray nozzles?
Is this the same on both sides of the aircraft or slightly different and if so which side has the greater volume and why?
3. Is it possible to resolve this volume more accurately. i.e. what %age of the previous volume exists between pickup and lets say the spar valve, heat exchanger or HP pump.
4. How long would it take to use this volume with 100% "block" at whatever thrust setting was likely to have been called for during final to offset flap etc (which wasn't delivered when requested).
I appreciate that full thrust was at some point selected but it was a much lower power request that highlighted the problem..
DO THESE FIGURES MAKE ANY SENSE?
So we could deduce 75%, 50% etc restriction vs duration.
Unless these figures make sense, discussing the possibility of Bernoulli type restriction etc seems a little premature (although possible) especially since such an occurrence has not been experienced during multi million previous landings. So what was different this time around?
As a professional engineer, but unfamiliar with the "detail" of aircraft installations, the 7/8 secs is in my view highly relevant.
The difference between 7 and 8 secs on the other side may NOT be relevant but explained by deficiencies in the measurement (DFDR sampling rate) process or subtle differences in the level of thrust commanded. However it MAY be significant if indeed the capacity of the system is indeed different LH to RH.
However a "significant" amount of fuel would be used during a 7 secs period. So how about a few FACTS even if these are derived from from first principles.
The AAIB have access to the real data so I guess they will have already been through an exercise something like this.
Maybe you will just overlook my request / maybe not!
Finally, am I correct in my understanding that BOTH LH and RH boost pumps WERE WORKING and that this was actually confirmed by the AAIB...I'm too lazy to go and reconfirm! If so why the discussion about what would happen if the pumps weren't running and the possibility of air being drawn in with low tanks etc.