I can't answer your question because I don't know. What I do know is that asking for the raw data (which no agency has ever done with a DFDR that records that much information) isn't going to help, because the interpretation of that data is going to be an open goal for accusations of bias from both sides' legal representation, and the scope for misinterpretation of that data is going to be huge.
It smacks to me of playing to the gallery, with the intent of insinuating the notion that the report is incomplete and motives suspicious among those who haven't followed things closely up until now.
What makes little sense to me about this push is that the report as it stands states that while the aircraft was mishandled by the crew, this can be attributed -at least in part - to insufficient training on the part of the airline. The airline seemingly did not disseminate Airbus's UAS bulletins effectively, nor did it follow up on whether the message was received by its crews - it also elected to spread the maintenance schedule where the pitot tubes were to be replaced over time. Airbus allowed that, and the report highlights aspects of the aircraft's design which could be considered unhelpful in a situation of this nature.
Now I'm no legal expert, but it seems to me that these aspects of the report give grounds for the families to pursue legal damages and recompense against Air France, Airbus and the authorities already - so why would they need more than that?
Last edited by DozyWannabe; 4th Jul 2013 at 20:26.