With respect, you make the mistake you describe, F4, in exactly the sequence you relate. You have eliminated here the last relic of your sequence, though it is common. BEA (not unthinkingly, and hence not unthinkable) may be off base. I say this with respect for their mission. No 'conclusion' is at hand, it says that in the report itself. They write what is likely, as they see it. Just because two outcomes seem unlikely, they may coexist in a very logical way. No one wants to believe this a/c lost parts (important ones) at high altitude in overspeed. I don't. I don't want to entertain that the pilots were inattentive rookies, or weren't up to the crisis. Belgique has a possibility that fills in alot of important blanks; I like it because, as a pilot, it makes sense, and as a human, seems least alarming of other possibilities (Plausibility). It too wants scepticism. The problem here is many posters are jumping to conclusions (I have, admittedly) and defending them. The Defense is what is off-putting. As an investigator, it borders on the ridiculous in some cases. Disclosure also requires me to admit that it is almost a perfect explanation of what I think happened here.
Last edited by Will Fraser; 23rd Sep 2009 at 16:31.