For what it may be worth, and I have no illusions, imho, Machinbird is spot on. BEA, having assembled an "HF" group, is attempting to shepherd Opinion in the direction of events that came after the initial blunders, and the aircraft's shortcomings. With a focus on the initial ten seconds and the initial climb, comes widening culpability for the airframer.
BEA quotes: Keep looking, and in their discovery, one may get a picture of how BEA is manipulating the facts.
"ICE, NOT ICE". @Alpha Zulu Romeo. On the contrary, the ICE issue is perhaps the single most important factor in the solution of this mystery.
"ICE", if proven, deflects focus away from the airframe's inabilities to deal with loss of Speeds.
If "NOT ICE", we need to look at AIRBUS' blunders in providing a straightforward solution to Autopilot/Pilot transition, rather than an after the fact publication of accidental and in service mitigations and recoveries. All the defense on this thread of how simples it is to recover an a/c from uncued maneuvering and loss of indications will not hide the fact that there are some obvious and systemic problems with this aircraft.
There is a reason the a/p is disconnected prior to landing, and hazards of airmass therefrom. Generally, the a/p should be disconnected when entering turbulence as well. Better to not let the a/c try to solve something it cannot fix.
Last edited by Lyman; 15th Dec 2011 at 16:09.