Lock the thread?
Tero,
Though I understand your point (as I'm sure most pprune readers do) I think we gain a great deal on this site through the occasional gem that shines through the detritus on this, and similar, threads (i.e. Airbus at Perignan, BA at LHR, etc).
I would suggest that some very enlightening and engaging online "workshops" have taken place on this thread as a result of posters bringing up notions in the context of this event. Examples (IMO at least) are: OFSO's comments on man-machine interface, discussion of the apparent increase in "loss of control" accidents, and CFIT issues.
If someone (or a mod) wants to creat a new thread on any issue arising, that would be fine of course, but if that new thread is not somehow tied to "Rumours and News" it seems to be easily missed.
So . . . in that vein, I propose the following (for discussion purposes):
In my opinion this is not a CFIT event. The ICAO definition of CFIT (accepted and used by JAR) assumes that controlled flight into terrain means that a servicable aircraft is flown into the ground (or water) with no time, or insufficient time, from the point of realisation for recovery to occur. From what we now know it seems there was sufficient time for recovery.
Does it matter? Maybe not, except for somebody's statistical review of aircraft accidents. What I do believe is that this tragedy will become an oft discussed and reviewed event in future classes/discussions/papers on flight safety issues.
Grizz