Originally Posted by Bearfoil
I am weary of folks accepting counterintuitive and plain wrong assumptions, including me.
If the a/s was 60 knots, and the a/p was in, we need to talk. If the Stall warning was on, and the a/c was not in ABNORMAL LAW, likewise. Monsieur takata swears that a/p drop was UAS driven, in spite of a time line provided by BEA.
Screw ACARS, all right? Old habits, etc. If the a/p was in, and the PF had a Stalling a/c in his mitts, he had a correct response.
Cruise flight is not easy to parse into BITS, it is a dynamic Dance, and these guys had an "Unfolding" (Unwinding) Flight Path. May we start there? Back to read only.
What a load of twaddle!
This persistent habit of inventing stuff out of the blue, and presenting it as it is somehow fact, while ignoring or distorting what is known fact, to allude or insinuate that the aircraft suffers from some unspecified flaw and that the BEA is in cahoots with the establishment to somehow pin it on the crew is really getting old.
Give it a rest, for everybody's sake.