ACLS65, thanks for the link.
Just having been reading through most of the English version of the 1st June 2009 report.
Some of it is clearly translated French, but none looks bad enough to lead to obvious misinterpretation by people familiar with the subject.
mm43 (re your earlier post), I would call it acceptable, but since I know French I can see where some of the terminology would have come from, even without having the French original next to the translation....
Whether it's as understandable to somebody without any French... I can't really judge.
HN39, classic problem.... (I should know... been there, done that. Plus a professional technical translator as a wife.)
I agree the 1st June 2009 report translation could have been better.
Not sure whether the BEA thought it useful to have somebody 'nitpick' the text. It was aimed at professionals, not curious amateurs.
It's why I always try to read the originals, rather than the translations.....