Quoting fizz57:-
Guys, my guess is that the BEA report is deliberately incomplete to hold off the inevitable lawsuits to the proper time, ie. after the final report is published.
Sadly, I think you're pretty nearly right there, fizz57. Except that I suspect that the BEA's thinking was even more short-term than that - that they were just required to shove out something that 'hinted' at pilot error, to get Airbus 'off the hook' before the Paris Airshow.......
In my view, it says all that needs to be said, without actually giving anything definite the lawyers can grasp on.
Sadly, I have to disagree there. The BEA's job is to determine the cause(s) of the accident as soon as ever possible, so that similar accidents can be avoided in future. Maybe I'm an idealist dreaming of a 'perfect world' - but we are probably all agreed that the BEA's note is more notable for what it leaves out, rather than what it puts in. The BEA's job is not to 'play poker' with lawyers - however much pressure the political guys put on them.
In a word, it's one of the most 'unprofessional' documents I've ever read in my life.......
Quoting jcjeant:-
The BEA communicate .. but not inform .. just like a tabloid
Exactly right in my view.
OK - I'll stick my neck out with a couple of 'speculations'......
1. As to the stall warnings cutting in and out, my guess is that this had to do with the 'Indicated Airspeed' being understated due to icing and/or the steep pitch-up. As far as I know (though I very seldom flew anything that had any sort of stall warning) stall warnings are 'disabled' below a given airspeed - simply because, if they weren't, they'd go off during the landing flare.......
2. As to the behaviour of the THS, if I was involved, I'd look very closely at the question of whether, if the autopilot and autothrust 'sign off,' it is designed to 'fail safe' or not. After all, the normal 'duty' of the THS in automatic flight, again as far as I know, is to maintain a precise altitude. For all I know, the THS, both at Perpignan and in the AF447 accident, was simply going on with that 'normal job' - trying to regain the assigned altitude it had last been set to maintain, before the autopilot was switched off (Perpignan) or 'signed off' (AF447)?
To repeat, just 'speculations.' Constructive comments/further information/corrections welcome. But anyone who feels the need, by all means 'flame away' if that's your wont........