Apparent to the investigators - hence why they informed the authorities and the information was released. The investigators are far more expert than you or I in this respect. I am inclined to trust them.
The point you are missing is that it can't be "apparent" until the investigation is complete. If the result is prejudged as "apparent" after only a few days then the whole investigation is potentially flawed as the evidence can be selected to fit the "crime" and evidence that doesn't fit is ignored or given little credibility.
What makes you think evidence has been 'selected'? The investigation pretty much IS complete - the CVR, combined with the Mode S ES data, combined with the ADS-B out data, is unfortunately pretty conclusive. What more do you believe a drawn-out and protracted investigation will reveal, or achieve? The very fact that conclusions have been drawn, and released, this early strongly suggests that this 'incident' is very much unlike most others.
There ARE people selecting (or rather ignoring) evidence to fit a preconceived idea - but it doesn't appear to be the BEA or French Authorities....
Imagine, if you will, that this investigation proceeded exactly as you suggest, and somewhere later down the line these same conclusions are reached - the public outcry, and the subsequent damage to our profession, would be catastrophic. 'We', as a community, would be accused of 'sitting on' information that could have immediate, serious safety consequences - at least in the public's mind.
You are also assuming that the investigation can't
possibly be complete after only 'a few days' - I disagree. It would appear that in this case they have enough evidence to present a reasonable conclusion, else they would not have done so. Most accidents CANNOT be concluded upon in just 'a few days' - but this is not 'most accidents'.
To say that as soon as any crime is suspected means that any accident investigation then goes out of the window is to completely miss the point of protecting pilots from consequences if they "fess up". If you ever get the chance to visit the AAIB down in Farnborough please take it up - perhaps then you will understand the point I'm making.
What pilot is ever going to 'fess up' to deliberately endangering their aircraft? I see no 'damage' being done to the investigation of genuine accidents here.
We also need to bear in mind the investigators' responsibilities under Annex 13 5.11:
5.11 If, in the course of an investigation it becomes known, or it is suspected, that an act of unlawful interference was involved, the investigator-in-charge shall immediately initiate action to ensure that the aviation security authorities of the
State(s) concerned are so informed. (my bold)
...which is EXACTLY what the investigators have done.
I have already visited the AAIB, quite some time ago now - very sobering walking around those hangars - not for the faint hearted.
I guess we won't see eye-to-eye on this, Rushed Approach, but I imagine time will tell.