meadowbank hi
So are we saying that we accept as FACT that the aircraft flew on a straight course, and a gentle climb, (perhaps even at high steady speed?) from waypoint change to impact?
Or is this simply another possible (or probable?) scenario which 'fits' an assumed cause?
In other words, which comes first? Do the facts lead us to the cause, or does an assumed cause help to guess a profile from the virtually non-existent factual evidence?
It's just that I can't recall ANY factual evidence apart from a geographical position, and approximate altitude (nobody knows how accurate!) at the moment of waypoint change, and evidence retrieved from the point of impact.
I am not including a Boeing simulation, modelling a possible final 2.9 secs for 2 reasons. Firstly it is a 'model' of a possible, and not a record of an 'actual', sequence of events.
Secondly, I am quite happy to accept that in the final 2.9 secs, the crew would have been doing all they possibly could to avoid ground contact. I would expect NOTHING less! However, that simple fact does little to explain how the aircraft came to be in such a situation in the first place!