Originally Posted by Bearfoil
I suppose another way to put it would be, that if THS remained +/- 3 degrees all the way up, would the a/c have started THS NU to counterract the -g the a/c "felt"(up to, through, and beyond the apogee?). Aren't the accels in charge of this protection? Would the PF know that the THS was trying to reweight the airframe, not retain the Stall? If this is what happened, the THS would articulate NU to the stop, since positive g at that point would be unrelated to THS position (all the way down), Yes? Is the 'g' protection active, then? Or just preventive?
Does this question have anything to do with Perpignan at all? Was Test pilot #1 trying to exceed 2.5 gees? To Pull up and away from the water?
Was the a/c actively prevented from more than +2.5 gee? Was 447 actively prevented from recovery from Stall because the PF did not know the THS had migrated all the way UP to regain +g? At 10,000 feet, was 1g regained, and the Tail became responsive again?
Bearfoil, you should stop dreaming that you will be able, any day soon, to rewrite the history of every "Airbus" already resolved crash without having a single idea of what you are talking about.
This is something I really don't understand about you... Those basic things are mandatory to understand how those aircraft are flying and most of this stuff, about Airbus FBW systems, is available nearly everywhere.
Why don't you take a little time to read it, all by yourself, instead of posting daily, from two years now on this thread, such a load of cr*ap about a subject you never bothered to study a minimum?