FanAviation
It is tempting to send this as a mere PM, but I think it may be helpful for a few of us. My conclusions re: the report, have to do with its whole appearance, context, continuity and related elements of purpose. Fanaviation, I see your point clearly, and in a way I would defend the paper as you are. However, and this is very complicated to convey, there are some very subtle constructs at work here, and without your understanding of the paper's purpose in all its iterations, your view of the actual product will be directed by perhaps said lack of understanding.
The mechanism at issue here transcends language, believe me. I apologize if I myself misunderstand your apparent defense of the Report.
Will
fyrefli
I agree with you. "attitude of flight" can be interchangeable with 'en ligne de vol'. As "heading" there is also evidence in the debris to support a claim of Horizontal travel at impact. That evidence was not addressed, and "forward flight" was left to be mysterious, as was any "rotation" of a/c at impact, which is also demonstrable in evidence, but was not so demonstrated. This report has the appearance of hit and miss reporting, some conclusions are offered, some hinted at, some treated differently, and therefore ignored. The jumbled nature of the paper is not evidence of the BEA's inability to write a conclusive and coherent preliminary statement, nor of the lack of time in which to prepare one.
Will
Last edited by Will Fraser; 8th Jul 2009 at 15:31.