JuggleDan
From a scientific reader's standpoint, there are two issues with this expose:
- The conclusion extends the findings of section 1.12.4 by adding that the a/c was not destroyed in flight without justifying this extension;
- The conclusion mixes as "established facts" on the one hand a long series of factual information and on the other hand a single non-factual conclusion (airplane was not destroyed in flight...).
My feeling is that the BEA is putting forward their theory (airplane was not destroyed in flight) as an established fact at a time when they probably don't have enough evidence to do so: as WF repeatedly points out, they don't have the autopsies' results yet.
I tend to read their releases a little bit higher on the surface, (I never trust translations). In other words we (the reader) should be less sure of
our conclusions.
At this point I haven't seen anything that concludes what started the airplane to fall out of the sky. Like
Will Fraser intimated, after it fell is all secondary to what we need to know to prevent a similar accident.