Jeff, EMIT,
Without intending to do so, I may have hyperfocused my disagreement with BEA terminology. In and of itself, the phrase en ligne de vol is reasonably benign. To take issue with it involves a very strict 'raison d'etre'. It may be a non charged description of horizontal for whomever wrote the piece. The writer isn't responsible, the group who approved the text is. As Surplus1 so eloquently points out, this report is composed by parties who have well defined and difficult to disguise interests in the ultimate understanding of the piece by all who read it. As such, it is a rehash of all the information already known, exclusion of information that would lay responsibility on an interested party, and is essentially useless.
Without substantiating a conclusion of hull integrity, they claim it by 'visual inspection'. No supporting engineering, no metallurgy, no independent or reviewed analysis. They rely solely on their authority to conclude to do so. This report is opportunistically political.
To those who would rely on ACARS as if it was some stand in device for FDR, the reality is far from relational. It is the poor passengers who have the most important evidence for a sincere path to the truth and consequent aeronautical progress.
Some here have already concluded ice was the procuring cause of upset.
Possible. So is a pneumatic anomaly vis a vis statics due to turbulence, or even within-the-envelope control excursions. Not to mention an upset already in progress.
The temptation for any lay theory is to base it perhaps solely on what you know best. Currents, Wx, AB systems, AF, etc. etc. I have no specific field other than 40 years of flying. Weather is my worst fear, followed by IMC vs. visual, followed a long way behind by airframe and powerplant issues.
It is worth noting that this thread is backwards. Starting with fussy even arcane and overly technical "evaluation" of what amounts to almost no evidence, I'm stuck where I was on day 1. A modern, well built, and state of the art wide body disappeared suddenly when all indications were that she was just fine. The best place to start is with what is known. A history of unreliable a/s followed by less than dependable computer track, followed by a thus far successful (albeit problematic) incident recovery. With the weather in the area of travel, and some mx tx, one would assume at the outset an upset or similar incident followed by this time an unsuccessful recovery.
"Wait for the Report".......... Why ?
Will