Quite agree, we here have very few facts available, facts that will only be available to us once the final report comes out. What we do have however is an awful lot of
'shoulds', even with some of the released
facts appearing to back up the
shoulds, until the final report is issued we still only end up with
shoulds, such as;
Should:
We all know the fuel system is designed so that No2 should run out of fuel first, once that engine has flamed out due to fuel starvation, No1 should have enough fuel remaining to run in theory for up to another two minutes.
Fact:
"It was found that the main fuel tank contained 76 kg of fuel, whilst the No 1 supply tank (left) contained 0.4 kg of fuel and the No 2 supply tank (right) was empty. It has also been confirmed, by examination and measurement of the internal design features, that this was the fuel disposition at the time of the accident."
"Preliminary analysis of the FADEC data indicates that the right engine flamed out, followed, a short time later, by the left engine also flaming out."
Just how long was that 'short time'?
Is that 0.4 kg remaining in the No1 supply tank possibly due to the change of attitude at the end of the powered approach, moving it to the rear of the supply tank away from the prime pump/fuel pick up, which pictorially is in the centre of the tank?
"This Special Bulletin contains facts which have been determined up to the time of issue. It is published to inform the aviation industry and the public of the general circumstances of accidents and serious incidents and should be regarded as tentative and subject to alteration or correction if additional evidence becomes available."
... so until we have the final report with the FADEC data and relative timings etc, we still end up with all those
'shoulds' and more questions.