In Re: "Benefit of Doubt"
Surely, if a person holds in their mind even a basic concept of the usual and customary (not even necessarily the "precise and technical") process for a proper Annex 13 investigation, there are very real concerns over the way this post-incident inquiry has been conducted. That being said, if a poster (such as the one referenced above) wishes to cast doubts upon whether the aircraft manufacturer might wish to get to a speedy conclusion, despite running roughshod over normal processes, then another question becomes a question that is fair to ask: does the configuration of the A320 Airbus type, as operated by the carrier in question, make it easier for a twisted aviator to conduct such a fatal flight profile? If there is nothing about the aircraft itself which either facilitated the fatal flight profile, or even attracted the twisted aviator into conducting it, then, what interest could the manufacturer really stand to have here, other than the insured risks which, to be blunt, are nominal. I know not even a paltry fraction enough about avionics and flight controls and the so-called magenta line to be able to answer this, but unless you can state a valid reason why the aircraft manufacturer might be called to account, again for either attracting a twisted aviator or facilitating him, in the way the flight controls and automation are arranged, there is no link between the seemingly highly irregular process conducted by the investigating authorities on the one hand, and the manufacturer on the other.