In answer to the thread originator, I think it a fair bet that not many details of the Air France report will become public unless, for example, someone posts a copy on Wikileaks.
Further on, SM deprecates the investigative committee, because it apparently didn't contain anyone heshe thinks is appropriately qualified. And then SM deprecates the qualifications of FL's acquaintance.
There are a number of possible reasons for this, some of them intellectual.
Amongst the intellectual ones may be that the management of Air France may have had different goals in mind than SM. For example, since they operate a large Airbus fleet, they might have wanted to have on their advisory committee someone who performed the seminal research work on pilot interaction with Airbus cockpit interfaces. And they did!
Another may be that Air France and SM have different ideas of who is expert. Given that SM's judgement has justifiably been questioned on who is expert in safety cases, it is thinkable that hisher judgement may be questioned on who is expert on other aspects of safety in which Air France is concerned.
So maybe SM could propose to us a committee which heshe considers more suitable?
I think the committee is distinguished. I am much more willing to imagine that they got to the core of important safety-related phenomena at the airline than I am willing to imagine that they missed the boat.
PBL