You'll let it here because you are not interested
Wrong. Your mind reading score is 0 out of 100.
at looking further than a FBW induced upset.
Actually, it intrigues the hell out of me, but I've a finite amount of time to engage with you. You are unable to answer my question, no problem, I appreciate the attempt.
Now, there are already some pretty good clues that AP did not order a pitch up and was possibly never fooled.
Which tells me you don't know ... no problem, it's a thorny question. The information should be with us shortly.
Note: what has been discussed in this thread is that in
some previous Unreliable Airspeed incidences, there were pitch up, but not in all. My point on "alerts" is that if your "alert" is the pitch up, you are already behind the aircraft ... which is an ergonomics and systems design issue when you have a known issue (back to 1999 at least ...) If there were other alerts, that is what remains unclear to me. If in this case the pitch up of some other incidents wasn't a symptom, ... we'll find out soon enough.
takata, do you understand how to stall an aircraft?
The scenario looks to have been open to more than one path to that destination. You will I am sure explain the stall in your own words.
There are reasons one enters turbulent air in a restricted window of airspeeds. (model dependent)
1) AP kicked off whith ADR faults without a single ADR previously rejected (it would take a double probe simultaneous failure to fool the system).
2) It could not have been re-engaged later because this fault was never cleared until before impact (RTL).
Thank you, that is old ground you are covering, and you still have not addressed my inquiry into alerts. Cheers. Appreciate your trying.
I am pretty sure that you don't understand what I am asking, and I am also not sure that I am asking clearly enough.
EDIT:
Conf iture ..
STALL WARNING during more than three (3) minutes
JE NE COMPRENDS RIEN said one pilot
My horrid grasp of French parses this as
"I don't understand this thing (that thing?)"
Am I close?