Belgique
Belgique
Thank you for your explicit and detailed answer.
It was not my intention, as mentioned in all other posts of myself before (There only had been a few) to blame anything on the aircrew. I dont assume that they flew blindly and willingly in a known ice scenario.
But isnīt it a fact, that we tend to look at possible causes in a single-minded way? I mean in a way, where we look at only one thing happening, excluding thereby other possible happenings. Could the chain of events not unfold in several parallel happenings in a quick and as proved deadly mannor? By the way, that is the way most accidents happen. It is called chain of events.
That there was no report of icing at that level or that the crew didnīt observe any icing on radar (which point was discussed highly emotional in this thread) does not neccessarily prove, that it did not develop within an updraft within a short time period. Nature has a lot of surprises at hand, and sometimes they are not yet known to us because nobody cared or nobody expierienced them or nobody reported them.
In accident investigation you look at the familiar, at the unfamiliar, and finally if you dont come to a satisfactory conclusion also at the unthinkable.
The High-Speed-Event does IMHO not fit to the final touchdown in the ocean (Time, location, attitude, speed, sinkrate, found evidence), there must be something else.