Doze
"Bear, you've got to be careful how you phrase this stuff. A newcomer to this thread would think that what you're presenting is a known fact rather than a theory posited by a single poster that is based on no evidence whatsoever."
There is no evidence as yet. Evidence is entered under penalty of perjury, and as "held and factual".
Here, we have ACARS, some few motes of "data", and miles of "O'Briennese" (no offense, mate). If a/p dropped, any flight vectors that had been under control, would have reverted to untrimmed, or been patent under a/p commands. Thus, "Trending". Not obvious? Fine.
Any one who is misled by reading any of this, needs a therapy. Informed opinion, at best. You give at least this old pilot too much credit.
happy day, Sir.
bear
ec, one outsider........
"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."
*"known fact"........Sorry?