As far as I'm concerned accident investigation agencies are still part of the industry. What concerns me is why you're singling out the BEA when they are far from the only agency that encountered the problem.
Also, investigative agencies tend to have a more peripheral role in non-fatal incidents. It's the recommendations of agencies with a broader remit, such as EASA, that tend to carry the weight - and they in turn hash out solutions with the manufacturers and the airlines.
It's important not to lose sight of the fact that the UAS situation triggered by the pitot tubes was simply the initiating factor. Far more central to the case is the question of why crews were insufficiently trained to handle such a situation, and a proper investigation into human factors - namely how a qualified pilot could become so overwhelmed by the situation that they do precisely the wrong thing consistently from onset to impact.
Re: the legal proceedings - call me cynical, but if I want the truth then the last person I'd expect to get it from is a lawyer. In fact most of the misinformation and scuttlebutt regarding Airbus has originated from within the legal profession via the news media.
Last edited by DozyWannabe; 3rd Jul 2013 at 16:58.