infrequentflyer789
I may be a titch too picky and/or pedantic, but for me the documents reek of "guided perception". In an accident with precious little conclusive evidence, I'll hang on to my opinion of a precipitous and less than objective initial report. "In Line of flight" is a charged and loaded phrase, unpredictable when read by lay people, and suspiciously incorrect based on examination of the wreckage when considered by a pilot (imo). Who can know the a/c was "lined up with airflow" into the wind when it impacted. It conveniently suggests that at whatever rate it was traveling horizontally, there was no component of skid, or slip. Neither would anyone think the airframe was "rotating about its architectural center point", ie, "spin". It imputes to an a/c that has just fallen from seven miles an exaggerated amd beneficial explanation that also suggests it had flyable characteristics remaining. And even if it did, no evidence exists to defend the a/c by concluding "Intact at impact". It cannot have yawed into the Sea such that the VS spun off the fuselage, and have hit "En Ligne de Vol". I wouldn't expect a harsh report either, but to me, it appeared defensive of the a/c, and less than objective. Followed by AF CEO claiming the pilots were "unlucky" to have "missed" a radar report that "all other pilots in the vicinity saw", initially blaming lightning (!), and then weather (we don't know that still), the pilots have no one to defend them.
The rapid dissemination of the first report and BEA, AF and AB with their many press conferences established a climate of guilt. Who is guilty? Anyone but AF? AB? Why focus on the impact results and avoid the cause of upset? Very careful with the cause, heavy on the result; slanted, imo.
bear