What would cause PF to keep the A/C in what I would summarize as a flared landing stall from FL380 to impact.
There is surely a missing piece here. Clearly the BEA statement is an extreme simplification of the facts. It implies that the pilots did everything professionally i.e. handled the a/c correctly given their training. Logically the cause must lie somewhere other than the pilots?
Presumably they did not ignore/neglect the flight instruments?
Were the flight instruments degraded more than just losing the Airspeed that the BEA is yet to release.
Did significant ice build up degrade the handling character of the airframe.
One thing is clear. A continuous tone stall warning would have helped as the plane had effectively "flat lined". The stall warning should not disable as the speed decays, if anything it should get loader.
IMHO the missing piece of why they sticked back is the largest hole in the swiss cheese. I was hoping for some resolution from BEA or the forum. However the statement has raised more questions than it has answered.
The other holes in the swiss cheese are a grey area and open to argument.
- AF chose to not update pitots aggresively as some other airlines.
- Prior to departure the Captain chose a flight path directly through the storm whereas the subsequent flights (Iberia and Lufthansa) took on extra fuel and significantly deviated.
- Captain chose to take bunk rest during the more challenging part of the flight.
- Airbus training in excursions outside the normal flight envelope and outside normal law are under represented.