Originally Posted by jcjeant
I think if it's a partisanship from the BEA ... it's will be for Airbus .. and against Air France
Or it could be that they're just following the evidence, as they've always done. Even a lot of the claims laid at the BEA's door from 1988 don't stand up to inspection. I don't doubt that there was significant consternation in some circles, but it does not necessarily therefore follow that pressure was applied to BEA, much less that they'd have automatically bowed to that pressure even if it existed.
[In reference to your earlier post, the raw DFDR output is supplanted in modern reports by the graphs, as they are easier to read and determine trends from - this has been the case for published reports across the world for over a decade now.]
The BEA's remit begins and ends with the technical and HF investigation - they do not brief the judicial apparatus or the press unless asked to do so, and even then they do not stray from the findings. The DGAC might, Air France might and the pilots' unions might, but on the face of what I've read and heard the BEA (like it's equivalents such as the AAIB, NTSB etc.) is not a political organisation in and of itself. Indeed, when Asseline's legal team briefed the press that the aircraft's elevators were briefly opposite his commands, the BEA actually worked to verify it (they found that he was correct in his assertion, but incorrect in terms of why it happened).
Regarding political machinations in general, while France is the nation primarily associated with Airbus, it's worth bearing in mind that the German, Spanish and (at the time) British units of the company would probably not take kindly to a unilateral whitewashing of safety issues on the part of the French, because if that were to happen and a scandal along the lines of the DC-10 affair were to develop, it would blow up in all of their faces. For this reason I believe that it did not in fact happen then and is unlikely to happen now.
The legal departments and representatives of all involved are likely to do everything in their power to minimise liability on the part of their employers and/or retainers, but that's not evidence of conspiracy - it's simply the job they are paid to do. I've said more than once that I believe the process in France where a criminal investigation is mandatory in the case of an air disaster actually works against proper understanding of the accident, because it is in the nature of the legal system to prioritise telling the best story and defending those represented against all-comers over sticking rigidly to the facts. I feel strongly that this is the reason we're still arguing over 24 year old accidents rather than moving forward - some of us even trying to apply articles of faith that they internalised all that time ago to the current situation rather than treating it as a separate case in its own right.
For the record, while I do not agree with everything Clandestino says - I feel he's more-or-less on the money with his last post (although his style is as abrasive as ever). Furthermore, I believe I am not the instigator of discord on this thread or others, I am but one "self-appointed fact-checker" of many, and in fact I don't spend as much time on here as I used to - which is why I tend to reply to a lot of things in bursts, then go away for a bit before returning some time later. It just so happened that one of these return visits coincided with the opening of this thread. The "back-seat surgeon" analogy is unfair because at no point have I ever attempted to tell a pilot how to fly, nor have I ever disputed a pilot's reasoning on anything other than a technical/engineering level.
@CONF (sorry - browser hid your post) - I think AH&N is a better fit considering that it is in fact discussion of a historical incident at this point. Don't take the front page blurb too literally, the fact is that R&N is geared towards current events, Tech Log towards specific questions of a technical nature (AF296's technical aspects are well-documented) and JB is the preferred place to simply have a hammer-and-tongs argument rather than reasoned discussion (as a result of which threads tend to get deleted there as a matter of course). Give it a go in AH&N and see what happens.
Anyways - time for a breather, let's see where this goes.
[EDIT - One last thing : Clandestino's one-word answer ("Marketing") to Boeing's retention of the yoke is at least partially correct. In this case, Boeing has a track record of going with the design requirements of the launch customer - offered a choice of sidesticks or yokes on the T7, United went with yokes, likewise the "low-tailed" 757 became the standard at the request of British Airways - originally the 757 was a T-tail design. In the event, the T7's software-controlled yoke became a differentiator and thus a selling point in the climate of the early 1990s when FBW (particularly Airbus's implementation of it) was regarded with more scepticism than it is now.]