Hi Bear,
Originally Posted by Bearfoil
Each time the PF inputs some NOSE DOWN, the a/c does the opposite, she starts to nose up, and slows. Finally, with the STALL WARNING, PF is baffled (wouldn't anyone be?)
I really wonder if you don't get a different report than ours. There is actually only two nose-down imputs reported in the whole BEA note:
Originally Posted by BEA
1) 2:10:16 ... The PF made nose-down control inputs and alternately left and right roll inputs. The vertical speed, which had reached 7,000 ft/min, dropped to 700 ft/min...
The first mentions of ND is obviously reducing the vertical speed; consequently, I can't find anywhere that "the aircraft does the opposite, she starts to nose up, and slows".
Originally Posted by BEA
2) 2:12:02 ... Around fifteen seconds later, the PF made pitch-down inputs. In the following moments, the angle of attack decreased...
The second mentions of ND is obviously reducing the angle of attack; consequently (again), I can't find anywhere that "the aircraft does the opposite, she starts to nose up, and slows".
The obvious issue isn't about what the PF/aircraft did but, quite frankly, about how you are reading this report with such a personal interpretation of a couple of "facts".
Originally Posted by BEA
At 2 h 10 min 51, the stall warning was triggered again. The thrust levers were positioned in the TO/GA detent and the PF maintained nose-up inputs. The recorded angle of attack, of around 6 degrees at the triggering of the stall warning, continued to increase.
Following your understanding of "facts", at this point, this aircraft is entering a near vertical dive, don't you think?