@ studi (#117 page 6) : Thanks for answering
Originally Posted by
studi
I was thinking of speed stability in Alternate Law.
OK so this one, I presume (*) :
"A nose up command is introduced any time the airplane exceeds VMO/MMO to keep the speed from increasing further, which CAN be overridden by the sidestick." (
source)
My problem with accepting this hypothesis is that as far as we know, the indicated speed was not exceeding VMO/MMO. In fact, it was the contrary if the last BEA note is to be trusted.
(*) another (low) speed stability function exists, but this one commands a nose down input, not the case here.
Originally Posted by
studi
If we look at it from the other side, IF the plane was functioning normally, we would have a case of 3 pilots being TOTALLY inapt for their job, which I honestly can not even believe for Air France being the case.
Uh oh, I don't agree. They may have made a (fatal) mistake, i.e. not recognizing the situation. Are they to be called "totally inapt" for that? I'm not sure.
What were the conditions ? Why did they seem to loose all confidence in all of their "indications" (after having firstly correctly recognized a problem with the -sole- speed) ?
I don't know and some parts of the story are still missing.
MurphyWasRight's post #119 is for example very interesting with the stall warning on/off/on and the possible consequences of that on the PF's mind.