Good to come accross someone, Flexible Response, who has the facts as I want to see them presented. I responded some time ago somewhere in this forum questionning the stabilizer position (13-15 nose up) and the resultant ineffectiveness of elevator control input which in the case of AF447 was nose UP, unfortunately aided by the stabilizer position !
Without knowing the condition of the stabilizer trim mechanism, I cannot
suspect a trim failure, such as the AC crash in St Therese, QC, Canada. And why was there no stall recognition by the crew members? Are they so sophisticated that they are no longer stick and rudder pilots? Is this the breed that precedes 100 % pilot function automation?
One might think, though, when the stabilizer trim is frozen, the PF would select opposite stick input, i.e nose DOWN to unstall the aircraft (after all they saw 187 knots on the clock at some point !). Which brings me back to a previous argument in that the sensors are believed to have iced up and I questioned the pitot heat function and this failing on ALL sensors? Not very likely unless there was a total electrical failure, in which case they should have selected the air driven generator?
I am anxiously awaiting the final report on this accident AND assess if the board of investigators have been non-partial, as some writers would make us believe they are!
I do hope there are extenuating circumstances in favor of the crew, although I am not reading anything in support of this presumption, so far.
And then one final point; why are all these "INTERIM" reports being released PRIOR to final analysis AND agreement between investigation members?
I am an old pilot with no AB experience. A "stick and rudder chap" who can still land a Birddog in a three point stall landing!