TwoOnefour;
The speed data derived from the FDR was officially released a few days ago -
Ok, thanks, I hadn't seen the info nor the notice here that the information was from the DFDR and that wasn't intimated in the post.
c9jfb
The mode you speak of is known very well by all AB pilots and is called "A-Floor" or Alpha-floor protection. The autoflight computers sense angle-of-attack and if too great, will place the autothrust in the TOGA (full thrust) mode and protect the pitch attitude to keep the angle-of-attack below the stall angle. Speed is respected and controlled by the flight computers through the elevators, so as long as the aircraft has sufficient energy the crew can fly the aircraft with full sidestick back-pressure (to the stop) and even do 20-degree bank turns in this mode. Obviously, physics still applies and the aircraft will still descend if in heavy windshear downdraft but the aircraft will be at it's maximum climb performance even in gusts. Disengaging A-Floor autothrust protection is done by disconnecting the autothrust either through the instinctive disconnect buttons on the sides of either thrust lever or the autothrust "ARM" button on the FCU (flight control unit).
However, as TyroPicard has stated correctly, the scenario you describe cannot occur because Alpha-prot is disengaged below 100ft. This is why the Airbus accident at Habsheim was not an "Airbus" accident where the autoflight - autothrottle systems somehow failed, but a crew/human factors accident. The crew had dis-armed the A-floor protection by pulling a circuit-breaker which means they were never intending to fly below 100ft (as they knew the demonstration they were considering would have engaged alpha-prot and "ruined" the demonstration). Instead, the narrow, short grass strip proved an optical illusion and they flew at about 30ft instead of higher than 100ft (where Alpha-prot would have been active). This isn't the place or thread to go into why this is so however but there remains huge misconceptions and even conspiracy theories about this accident and the sophisticated autoflight systems of this design. Sorry for the thread diversion, but it helps explain the AB autoflight system a bit more.
I think PBL's posts are well worth reading with care and thought.
BOAC;
Absolutely. Unlike the early 90's when instructors were 24hrs ahead of the students, there is sufficient experience and knowledge about this aircraft now to make it "old hat" so there is no excuse for not knowing these very basic facts about the Airbus product. The aircraft is exceptionally well conceived and executed but it requires about six months to a year of flying it before it becomes second-nature. In this sense, the attractiveness of the Boeing as a bread-and-butter transistion is that such a "break-in" period has never been necessary and the designs are a delight to fly. Pilots love familiarity and predictability and the Boeing delivers this in spades, (although the 78' is going to be an interesting introduction). That said, the Airbus design is now at that same level of familiarity within the industry but the airplane's autoflight systems are more complex and require the training that you so correctly emphasize. The entire difficulty has been, however, that managements were "sold" (and, with dollars in mind, they bought) the notion that "automation" would "solve" their training issues and so gradually the pilot-training footprint was reduced with the result that comprehension of the autoflight/autothrust system was marginal in a few cases. The training savings came for common cockpits in different types however, and not on the initial transition course. Transition courses are all the same - they take about 56 days to complete for new, non-AB candidates but crew "downtime" these days is under tremendous pressure so footprints are reduced.
None of this relates to or comments upon, the crew in the accident aircraft who by all accounts were highly experienced professionals.
I apologize for the thread-drift once again and justify it only in the sense that it may provide a bit further understanding. I am glad you're beginning another thread on this as the topic is in need of discussion especially in today's extremely cost-concious (penny-wise, pound-foolish, is the way I'd put it), environment.