What you didn't read in the FINAL report:
23:15:36 the fourth failure of the Rudder Travel Limiter Units triggered ECAM message....and 3 seconds later a sound similar to a seat motion is heard..
It seems also that Airbus picked up on my observations that some of the times do not match up.
The crucial point here (other than the fact that having stalled the airplane they failed to recover from it) is that "some" may believe that this report has been carefully worded to avoid stating that one of the pilots might have actually left his seat to re-set a CB that was not called on the ECAM to be re-set. Throughout the report the investigators have chosen to use the phrase "AUTO FLT FAC (1 or 2) FAULT which was triggered by FAC (1 or 2) FAULT followed by signature of erratic fluctuation of the parameters of the components controlled by FAC...".
Airbus on the other hand wanted the statement amended to " triggered by FAC 1 (or 2) being de-energised concomitant with FDR signature of unavailability of parameters computed by FAC 1 (or 2).[/QUOTE].
There is a big difference between the two statements, especially when one considers the definitions of fluctuating and unavailable.
Perhaps that is why not much of the CVR transcript was included in the report.
Last edited by sooty3694; 2nd Dec 2015 at 15:10.
Reason: added text