Originally Posted by
predictorM9
Also, what matters is not the fact that it sounded for 57 seconds straight. What matters is the fact that pilots push the stick forward and then the stall warning sound. If you were piloting this plane with all the other faulty sensors, wouldn't you start to think that the stall warning is faulty too?
The only faulty sensors were the pitots, and then only briefly, so to say "all the other faulty sensors" is a bit disingenuous. At this point I believe a competent pilot should disregard all other annunciations other than the thrust settings and the pitch as displayed on the ADI (double-checking the ADI with the standby instrument if you're unsure). Once you've got those in the right ballpark you should know you're going to be OK.
This kind of behavior of the stall warning is only caused by the faulty logic, and the BEA does not seem to want to address this...
If they didn't want to address it, they wouldn't have mentioned it in the report, but the important point (which goes back to your first paragraph) is this - simply teaching stall warning and avoidance, as had been done prior to this accident, simply isn't enough. Stall recognition and recovery procedures should be a mandatory part of recurrent training, which you'll notice has become something of a hot topic in the industry over the last couple of years.
Originally Posted by
predictorM9
I don't see why we should blame the pilots for discarding a warning system that is behaving erratically and against your intuition (nose up= stall, nose down=no stall).
Again, only the press are saying that the report is "blaming" the pilots. If you read the report itself, it becomes pretty clear that the BEA considers this an industry-wide issue that should be clarified and adopted by manufacturers and airlines alike.
I'm beginning to wonder why the press are unilaterally oversimplifying the interim findings this way - you only have to look at the report itself to see that it is a very dry document that does not apportion blame as such, but does criticise the apparent lack of CRM and flying knowledge exhibited in the flight deck. It isn't blaming the pilots, it's saying there's likely a systemic problem that needs to be addressed - unfortunately that doesn't make for a "sexy" byline.