@A33Zab:
Originally Posted by
A33Zab
-The AOA replacement program was already in progress before publication of the 3rd BEA report.
Understood - but in that case there seems no reason for them
not to say "FYI, we saw AoA #1 misreading - but this issue is already known, see EASA AD ...". If they wrote something like that, it would show that they recognised, evaluated, and dismissed that this needed further investigation. By not mentioning it at all, that leaves open (at least in my mind) the possibility that they didn't recognise it, although as I just mentioned a few mins ago, it might become a footnote in the final report - we'll have to wait until then to see if it is mentioned.