While we wait (with the highest of hopes) for news, and in between mm43’s –and others – amazing and informative contributions, I would like to bring up a matter raised a few days ago by machinbird.
His post related to accident remains, and it got me thinking again about the issue of the autopsy reports. Sadly, like machinbird, I too have some experience with accident remains (meaning the aircraft and its contents). In that regard I agree with his comments about the nature of damage and injury in different scenarios. For that reason I find it amazing that it’s almost a year since the accident and yet the autopsy reports have not yet been shared with the BEA.
Though it’s of course not a pleasant subject, it must be said that much can (and would) be learned by the BEA from the autopsy information (assuming of course that the autopsies were professionally performed. I have seen nothing that casts doubt upon that notion.)
One small example: The information we do have (from the BEA) suggests that the bodies that were recovered were identifiable and intact. That in turn strongly suggests an impact that was not as catastrophic as some have surmised. Indeed, to me it suggests the possibility that some semblance of control may have been present until impact, or until shortly before impact. This scenario seems even more plausible as the now presumed location hints at the possibility of a longer flight time than was previously envisioned by some.
CAVEAT: I have gone to great pains to use terms such as “may have, possible, plausible, and suggest” extensively. I am NOT putting forth an explanation; I’m simply pondering.
grizz