CHINOOK
Ark Royal,
I have indeed been reading the threads, and I have been offering my humble comments, based on a certain amount of flying experience, for over one year.
And we really must not go into all this again. But what I think concerns many of the folk, who, like me, are anxious to see a final conclusion to this whole long and very sad saga is this:
Something like eight or ten possible technical/ electrical/mechanical faults in the aircraft have been put forward (one after the other - and thus of course weakening the validity of all of them) over the past few years as contributing to the tragedy. None of these possible faults can explain the fact that the aircraft carried straight on beyond the Waypoint change, nor can any of them actually explain the crash, particularly since there was no post-crash evidence of any of any of them.
As I have said before, (and I'm sorry to be boring about this) , the explanation of the crash is that THE CREW WERE NOT WHERE THEY THOUGHT THEY WERE. They were more than a quarter of a mile to the right of their planned track, and thus (in unambiguous IMC) they faced ground that rose to more than 800 feet instead of the 300 or so feet that they expected .
It really will not do say that one or other of the possible technical factors might just possibly, one way or another, have caused the crash. There must be an explanation. Please tell us WHICH of the many technical and possible explanations you favour, ie the one you think caused the crash; (no ducking and weaving please).
Regards John.