Lacking basic information on configuration and...
Does anyone have any insight in the actual specific configuration of this plane (not the original "as built" configuration, but the "as is"?).
Acars?
Engines - remote 'monitoring'?
Perhaps even Other air/ground information channels?
The answer to those questions would have a significant impact on a lot of what has been discussed and said till now. Even when installed you would still have to find out if it was working at the time.
From an accident investigation point of view it would be rather damaging if the procureur (I use the word procureur and not the word prosecuter) had based his statements on a rough and initial reading of the CVR only. If the same damage is perceived from a judicial point of view I don't know.
So would like to ask two questions:
A. Can anyone say something about the plane's configuration?
B. Is it acceptable under French judiciairy practice to make statements of what are in aerospace terms still 'not yet synchronized, non-confirmed, rough 'facts'', and if so, why and for what purpose are these statements generally made?
Note1: some papers and posters appear to state that the procureur was pressed by the NYT disclosure... Or later BildamS...
Note2: some papers and posters appear to state that the early publication was required in order to preserve evidence.
I don't understand why and how that would work ... It would help if the answers to A. and B. could also shed some light on these two Notes.