Even if lightening alone cannot down a plane, the general drift of the speculation is still toward a weather-related series of failures. If those with the early view that the type of lightening at the top of the type of storm (at the aircraft's altitude) the aircraft flew into were amiss, it's pretty clear that weather is still on people's minds: "It's possible for a plane to be exposed to lightning, and at the same to be caught in an up current ..."Consensus quickly developed that the most likely cause of the accident was a lightning strike.
But as more than one expert pointed out, if lightning alone caused planes to crash, then few people would be so foolhardy as to risk flying.
"For a plane to get hit by lightning is totally routine," said Pierre Sparaco, a member of the French Air and Space Academy.
"That is not enough to explain it. There must be a missing link. It is clearly something and something.
"Accident investigators talk always of a 'sequence of catastrophic events', and sequence is the key word," he said.
"It is not this thing or that thing that went wrong. It is this thing going wrong, leading to that thing going wrong etc etc."
I'm not lobbying for lightening as the cause. I was really only questioning the "suspicion" that the aircraft wasn't at the mercy of the weather because it's lightening-proof.