Tuc
So the large number of people (eg Ralph's team) looking at airworthiness have identified what that kit was and evaluated its possible relevance to the crash?
Why not - It was a long time ago - so does it still need to be classified?
Why is it so taboo?
SFFP
Just what form would the evidence (acceptable to you) have to take? A written plan signed by the pilots as opposed to the intentions deduced from ample data? The latter would surely be more relevant as it was what they did.
The logical conclusions as to their intentions (from the analysis of all the available data) get as far at least as to rubbish the original official statements pointing to negligence (eg the "inappropriate rate of climb") and the airworthiness arguments (as meaningful control was demonstrated).
I agree that any proof to date that CPLS was actually used is circumstantial - eg in what circumstances would such a crew make such an approach (as evidenced from the available data) in such conditions? and why would the forward loadmaster be where he was instead of being at the side window? etc, etc. Of course someone would know and a sworn statement would be nice and it is those who may know that my post of the team members on board was meant to shame into action.