There are a couple of minor inconsistencies that no doubt will be sorted out in the days and months to come.
The "report from Airbus" indicates that the No.1 Engine N1 was around 35% - that's about idle thrust - the N2 at idle thrust is about 55 to 58%, sufficient to power both the hydraulic pump (yellow system) and it's generator. The report only indicates that the No.2 engine N1 was 18%, a bit more than half of normal - assuming the fire was still lit, the N2 was obviously high enough to drive the Green system hydraulic pump and it's generator, powering all systems - I see where you were going, Safety Concern and appreciate both your obvious credibility and the now-available background to your post.
Not sure why a relight was attempted on No1 if it was running but those kinds of decisions will come out in the official reports. Obviously they "wrote off" No.2 as a candidate for a restart in the time they had.
One other item - some posts indicate that the RAT was deployed (and that it "can be seen" in photo #6 in the series just posted) - I'm not sure about that but if both generators were running the system would not normally (key word) deploy the RAT. Also, some say the APU was running; the Airbus communique says nothing about this, but again we will learn about this shortly, I'm sure.
The speed and pitch attitudes surprised me a little - lower, and higher, respectively, especially where Alpha-Prot was - indicates a heavier airplane than I thought, (20,000kg, as I understand the fuel load to have been, is a lot of fuel for this airplane, though).
Last edited by PJ2; 24th January 2009 at 17:32.