Thank you Lemurian, besides defusing myths surrounding Habsheim and Warsaw accidents, the link provided gives good clue why we do accident analysys at all. Basing its conclusion on facts and logical deduction, it sure supports BEA's point of view that airplane worked as expected and fault lies with seriously flawed execution of flypast.
But let me introduce radically different point of view, put forward in
report by Christian Roger, advisor in the defence of capt. Michel Asseline, flight capt. Air France (ret.), former leader of
Patrouille de France. president of
SNPL Air France 1986-1990. According to it, DFDR and CVR recordings used in accident analysys and legal proceedings were completely forged and didn't come from accident aircraft.
Videos taken on the day of accident were all forged too. DGAC, Airbus, BEA, French goverment and French judicial system conspired together to hide the real cause of the accident. With real black boxes gone for good, the only reliable pieces of information, upon which he based his conlusions, were: capt. Aseline's words as he left burning aircraft "the engines didn't pick up correctly" and fact that slash marks on trees were asymetrical. Even the trees were misteriously offed three days later by the by conspirators but it was too late, because capt. Roger has already seen enough broken tree tops and made up his mind regarding the probable cause. Determining that there was asymetrical spooling up of the engines, probably caused by faulty FADEC electronics, was his
tour de force.
Chalk one up for paranoia and delusion. With friends like these, capt. Asseline was not quite in the need of enemies. Back to my fable, moral #2.
And the question time it is. You have the guy that claims that:
- the minimum flying speed of A320 is fixed by the builders as "Alpha max". Higher useable speeds may be mentioned, but they can only be recommendations.
-there cannot be traces of fire extinguishing products on the recorders boxes without traces of fire itself
-only one single speed can correspond to a particular angle of incidence in aviation (page 30 - guy is totally ignorant of the existence of ground effect)
-they never said why the radar was not accurate enough (for a plane flying below 50ft, that is)
...and many others. So how is it possible that this guy retires after distinguished career in mil and civ aviation and no one ever notices that something is wrong with him? Since he's heavilly copy/pasting from Roger's report and pushing Roger's agenda as if it were his own, I hereby pronounce CONFiture the most suitable person to answer this question.