Originally Posted by
bearfoil
Hmmm. Claiming the a/c behaved as directed after this accident was under way is misleading, if not a direct fraud. No one to this very day knows what to expect after LOC ending in Stall, yet that is the focus of the BEA recommendations? Confusion on the flight deck? Christ, does any pilot take that as a serious critique of these guys given the circumstances?
The induction of this LOC is virtually ignored. The Public is to accept the outrageous nonchalance of this outfit, and be satisfied with a conclusion and blame prior to the finish of the investigation?
Bear - look at the traces. This wasn't a LOC ending in stall, this was an aircraft *controlled into* the stall, because the guy with the stick in his hand had not been properly trained to deal with the set of circumstances with which he was faced.
After starting by insisting the vertical stabiliser must have separated, then moving on to various dark murmurings about the computer doing sometihng that the pilots didn't expect, or random actuation of flight surfaces taking them out of stable flight, your insistence that something must have been wrong with the aircraft (over and above the pitot tubes) in the face of all the evidence put forth has been puzzling. Why are you so sure they're hiding something?
But that leaves the Public with but one source of critical knowledge, a source with a financial and commercial interest in the outcome.
If there was anything nefarious going on, then you'd expect AF (which is a also a commerical interest of the French government) to have been given the whitewash treatment too - as it is they've come in for some pretty heavy stick here.