http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7208126.stm
The BBC has misinterpreted the AAIB report.
The AAIB said:
Recorded data indicates that an adequate fuel quantity was on board the aircraft and that the autothrottle and engine control commands were performing as expected prior to, and after, the reduction in thrust.
I interpret this as meaning that the FDR data shows that the correct commands were issued, and at the correct time; nothing more than that. It doesn't mean that the commands reached the engines, or that the engines received the commands, or that the commands were processed. All we know (at the moment) is that the engines did not do the expected thing. [
cf Dark Star 
].
The BBC reported that the AAIB said:
"Recorded data shows the aircraft had enough fuel and its automatic throttle and engine control systems had worked as expected, the AAIB said."
But the AAIB actually said:
Recorded data indicates that an adequate fuel quantity was on board the aircraft and that the autothrottle and engine control commands were performing as expected prior to, and after, the reduction in thrust.
Very poor reporting on the part of the BBC.
Apparently the engines were turning on impact and one failed 8 seconds after the other.
Not quite joe - neither engine failed:
The AAIB said:
The engines did not shut down and both engines continued to produce thrust at an engine speed above flight idle, but less than the commanded thrust.
The only thing that the latest report does, IMHO, is eliminate the possibility that the plane was out of fuel, which would have meant that the crash was caused by pilot error.
There are other types of pilot error, and system faults, that have not yet been mentioned. Until the cause is known, there's very little else that can be eliminated.
Now then, if the engines were still thrusting, and if the grass had been a conveyor belt moving in the opposite direction to the plane, would the wheels have come off?
