lomapaseo,
You can never be sure that you have actually got all the varriables tinkered to perfection and thus any answer that you would like to draw is challengeable by all except yourself.
It's akin to running an experiement to see how it breaks. When all that we can really use is to confirm that it doesn't break enough times to be deemed safe.
Basically, i agree with you. Although it might seem an unorthodox approach, my suggestion is not meant to test it until it breaks but utilise the original
complete article while it is available. To run through all the systems and sequences in their interacting, normal, functional environment. This to collect/reproduce data from existing parameters, complemented with parameters that may be suspect as a result of the investigation but not recorded before and lacking evidence of a (possible) dormant failure. What if, while performing such unique excersize, the problem is reproduced?
Obviously, this would be of added value only, provided that at this time no conclusive evidence has been collected to correct whatever caused the problem.
As long as MM is relatively intact, it would be an opportunity. With the airplane systems basically intact, all its removed components are probably quarantined for the investigation, it is at least an option. Once the scrapper starts putting its teeth in it, the opportunity is lost. From what i read from Seloco's post today, that opportunity is quickly evaporating . . . . it could also indicate that the AAIB may very well have progressed further than published.
Green-dot