Hi Bearfoil,
Originally Posted by Bearfoil
This is one of the fallacies of BEA's use of the words "En Ligne de Vol". This a/c was not flying, It was falling, and had not a heading, it had a trajectory, as any ballistic agglomeration of falling masses has
The only fallacy I'm reading, in many posts from you, is your basic understanding of what the BEA described in this first report.
Sorry to say it, but you can check by yourself the explanation I gave at this time of this
"en ligne de vol" stuff.
This is a (short) old French technical aeronautical expression, no matter if you like it or not, that is exactly describing an aircraft attitude (assiette) and is meaningless concerning the "flight vectors" involved (this aircraft could be "flying" or "falling" while being "en ligne de vol" as both is right.
And, please, do not think they changed anything about their impact attitude description in the following report as they just fully worded what it means in plain text, which take two sentences instead of four words.
You may surely be critical to the BEA for something worth of it, but here, let me tell you that you are plain wrong about their wording intentions. I looked myself at the description of the impact and came back to post here that the aicraft did not "dive into the sea" but impacted possibly stalled, wings level, with a positive pitch =
"en ligne de vol".