Originally Posted by
CONF iture
Bad luck, as the pilots did not die during the crash, they had their own testimony to produce, and it appears to be slightly different from the BEA account.
You've got it backwards. For one thing, the allegations regarding aircraft performance (such as elevator behaviour and engine performance) were made by Capt. Asseline *during* the investigation, *before* the BEA report was released. We have already ascertained that the BEA's response was to take those allegations seriously, checked the DFDR data and flew an identical profile to ascertain why the aircraft behaved as it did. The engine performance was shown to be within normal limits, and the elevator behaviour shown to be a result of alpha protection. All this is included in the report. There was no need to "discredit" anyone, merely prove scientifically and by example that the aircraft behaved normally - a requirement satisfied by the report.
Notably, once things had settled, it was only Asseline who kept insisting that the aircraft had failed him - nothing was heard from his first officers since. If the crew as a whole had such faith in Asseline's position, why did they not put their names to his book? Why did his lawyers never pursue the fact - laid out clearly in the BEA's report - that the airline's standard of operations were not fit for purpose in this case? I reckon SNPL union politics have a lot to answer for here - I don't think they ever had his interests at heart, and instead saw him as a tool in their ongoing vendetta with Airbus.