DozyWannabe: +1
well said
Anyway, the fact that a change to the A/T behavior WAS implemented should be a affirmation of a
lack of arrogance on their part: "we got this wrong, we fixed it...". That does NOTHING to confirm or infer there are other alligators hidden in the lake.
Ultimately the piece of the jigsaw with the GREATEST variability and uncertainty with respect to predictable behavior IS the chap with his hands on the controls. Let's be brutal here - ANY aircraft can be driven into the ground with the wrong pilot input, FBW, flight control computers, PRIMs be damned. Clearly that is inciteful and I am NOT claiming that there was any intent related to AF447. But once the auto-everything lets go the PF needs to get on with the program pretty damn quick.
Unfortunately in this case, I have a great fear that the sudden delivery of the aircraft into the PF in this case was entirely unexpected and the actions in the first few seconds were, (how can put this?), less than optimal. The game was not over, but little of what followed appears destined to recover the aircraft.
A fairly benign UAS event became a fully developed stall in less than 60 seconds or so. If THAT is what happened, then all this Airbus bashing seems out of place. That is not to say Airbus and the BEA will not find recommendations to ASSIST the pilot in such a situation, but I'm betting a buck it won't be a drop to Direct Law or elimination of the THS trim function in Alternate.