Originally Posted by falconer1
no, "beyond all reasonable doubt" is not possible in a lot of cases, and may not be possible in this case..
Thank you for your reply but, with all due respect, I disagree. The key word is
reasonable. We can never be 100% certain and that is why the cause of every accident is always defined as "probable". With data from from the FDR and CVR we can determine the
probable cause beyond all reasonable doubt.
I agree with all the dangers you articulate associated with the penetration of convective cells. However, your message infers that you are convinced beyond reasonable doubt that this aircraft did penetrade a deadly cell. With all due respect you have no verifiable data that supports that hypothesis. It is only your assumption.
We do know, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the crew lost control of the aircraft at some point between INTOL and TASIL, but we
do not know where that occurred nor why. We can logically presume,
beyond all reasonable doubt, that they did not descend 35,000 ft with the deliberate intention of executing a water landing in the Atlantic ocean for the thrill of it.
We can also presume that an involuntary descent of approximately 7 miles in a large T-category transport aircraft, out of control, is most unlikely to have ocurred with no structural damage of significance prior to impact. Such a presumption is not logical. It is a fine aircraft, but it is not immune to structural damage in flight.
Only the FDR and CVR can definitively answer the questions that we all have. IF they are recovered and readable, it is only then that the various hypotheses can be developed into a scientific theory. The
probable cause will then have been determined - beyond reasonable doubt.