Maybe... it sure will be used to fix other airbus in the inventory though
Won’t fix the pilot problem though.
Latest update on “Aviation Herald” is that they landed with only 200 KGS fuel remaining.
The accident is so bizarre we will probably never know the truth but I wouldn’t fly on that airline even if they had brand new planes , lots of spare parts and no embargo.
How they ended up with only 200 KGS ( on a field, not even at the alternate ) of fuel considering they said they used a 25% fuel penalty factor when it’s only 15% with gear doors open is bizarre. They should have landed with even more fuel than they planned.
The min fuel to land with is 1000 KGS. How they burned so much additional fuel is mind boggling to me. They used an extra 800 , just to get to the field , which is short of the diversion airport.
Also, when you lose the Green hydraulics , you lose “ normal “ brakes and I cannot help myself from speculating ( the curious pilot in me ) that the crew didn’t fully understand what losing “ normal “ brakes means when it appeared on the ECAM STATUS page following the failure.
All Airbus is telling pilots is that the brakes had switched to alternate mode BUT you still have anti skid which is all that matters ( huge increase in landing distance if you lose anti skid ).
If a pilot saw that message on the ECAM but didn’t fully understand it, I could see them being worried the runway was too short, but it wasn’t.
Diverting, incorrectly calculating how much extra fuel would be required ended up being the safety issue.
Unless they had a fuel leak also ( which would be totally unrelated and so remote ) , there is no other explanation as fuel doesn’t just start “ decreasing” on the fuel gauges as they state.
Excuse me for continuing to comment and speculate on this story but I find it particularly interesting as a pilot for some reason.
Because we may never know what happened that caused the forced landing in a field, speculation is all we have.