I can't get that satellite image ("pollution") out of my mind.
Regardless of whether it was actually related to AF447, I find BEA's response and comments both puzzling and inadequate.
First, this statement: "...this pollution spot may be the remnant of a kerosene release by the plane (be it voluntary or not)."
The "voluntary or not" part simply does not make sense. For an international investigative agency like BEA to imply that what we see could be kerosene (jet fuel) from a fuel dump is simply mind boggling. I can envisage NO scenario where a voluntary (i.e. intentional) dump of fuel would result in such a detectable layer of kerosene on the surface. (And I will happily engage in a discussion with anyone who can suggest such a scenario.) The existence of that phrase in the report suggests that the appropriate experts were either not consulted or they didn't assert themsleves prior to that bit being published.
Second, this statement: "We have been unable, however, to relate this pollution spot to any impact point of the plane as determined from the debris and bodies found and the velocity fields estimated...."
The BEA themselves admit that there are NO specific facts known about ANY of the actual events from the time of last contact until the aircraft's impact with the ocean. NONE. Therefore their conclusion that this "spill" was of no further interest, based on their assumptions and estimates, is a clear example of one of the primary mistakes in any investigation: Ignoring what doesn't fit within your favourite scenario. I hope I'm wrong, but this item could turn out to be one of those infamous legacies discussed in future books and accident investigation courses.
grizz