"Yes, indeed. The technical issue has been identified: the engine self-destructed. Technical checks completed - confirmed that the engine self-destructed."
What would you expect them to say?
How about just the facts? The flight didn't divert to Goose Bay as a "precaution." It diverted because that's S.O.P. when a passenger aircraft loses an engine. And they didn't divert for "technical checks." Air France doesn't have facilities at Goose Bay, and Goose Bay has probably never seen an A380 before -- it's not set up for planes that big. "Technical issue identified"? Hell, yeah, the "technical issue" was identified -- the engine blew up. They could have just said there was an engine failure and that, in accordance with standard safety protocols, the aircraft diverted to the nearest available airport.
You're a technical writer. Surely you have a good understanding of how things can be stated so the information is accurate and concise. The statement I quoted was perhaps correct (barely) but it was intentionally misleading, intended (of course) to fluff over the potential seriousness of the incident. I understand the motive behind not making it into
A BIG DEAL, but the way it was phrased came across as too much of a PR cover job.
