They take months to years to compile. It seems to me that the majority of folks on this thread need to take a deep breath and wait for the data to come in before making such broad assumptions. The first rule of accident investigation is don't draw any conclusions until all the available data is in and we're a damn long way from that right now. Given the lack of flight data in the absence of the FDR memory card, the Prosecutor in France who claims this was a deliberate act is, at best, speculating as to the true cause, particularly in light of other Airbus crashes and their causes. The media, right on time, is sensationalizing what is pure speculation. As many times as this has happened in recent memory you'd think more people would recognize it for what it is, but I guess not.
But...assuming that this prosecutor has heard the available tape and it does,*in fact*,indicate that one of the pilots was locked out of the cockpit and was *frantically* trying to get back in,isn't a deliberate act on the part of the pilot *in* the cockpit the most plausible explanation?
After all,as they say..."sometimes a cigar is just a cigar".
Thanks. I agree on the advisability of waiting for an investigation.
Perhaps my question wasn’t sufficiently clear ... I was asking your thoughts on the accuracy of formal accident reports once they have been completed. Do you think they generally get it right?