... he was not looking for TRIM, he was looking for AUTHORITY. He did not know the THS was full UP, and that he desperately needed to move it DOWN.
We don't know what he knew. Nor what he saw in his field of view.
At unusual Attitudes (sic), why is the THS allowed to (commanded to?) migrate into a position where, if setting is unknown, it may be causing the problem PF is trying to solve?
That's a good question, bear. Here's an idea for you.
The unusual attitudes (UA) law looks to be a form of graceful degradation that is intended to ensure that automatic (robot) inputs no longer contradict a pilot trying to recover from an unusual attitude. (Note, current hints suggest this law state was not active in 447). Mikelour posted a few pages back on some UA scenarios he used to teach in the sim, some of which demonstrated that you needed to remember to get that trim wheel working to get the plane back under your control. (He also caveats that he wasn't sure if it was a "simism" or not).
The design thus (it seem to me) includes the possibility that a haywire robot may contribute to UA. If those out of normal parameters boundaries are reached, robot is told "sit on yer hands, you naughty boy" and the pilot flies as manually as can be in this aircraft, to include trimming the nose with his trim wheel -- he has to, as the robot has been put into the penalty box for a two minute minor. Don't know if there is a flag or alert for UA law that lets the crew know "robot is in the penalty box, you are flying a man down" or not.
I'll hope that Svarin, if he'd like, can pursue further his concerns on unexpected logic failures or failure modes.
Can't wait for the Friday report. Hopefully some of the fog will be burned off.