Originally Posted by
xcitation
DW
are you saying that the nose ups did not cause the stall warning.
Are you trying to correlate stick inputs to warnings.
I'm trying to say that the stall warnings do not coincide with inputs, but with the attitude of the aircraft (which did not always correspond with inputs due to it's stalled state).
Originally Posted by
airtren
It looks like the STALL Warning OFF, coincides with Pitch NU increase, while STALL Warning ON, coincides with Pitch ND decrease.
Really? To me it looks like (after the stall) the Stall Warning comes on as the nose begins to pitch back up, then switches off as the pitch-up causes the aircraft to assume an extreme AoA and slow down again. Then the nose comes down again, a little speed is picked up and the stall warning comes back on as the nose starts to come up.
What caused the pitch attitude variations?
Aerodynamic forces present in the stall, in combination with the position of the flight control surfaces at the time. If you've ever made a paper aeroplane and thrown it while pitched nose-up, you'll remember that the nose went up, the paper aeroplane stalled due to the high angle, the nose came back down and usually it made a change in direction of some kind as it fell to the ground.
Either way the path was not always under the control of the pilots, so my view is that while the stall warning logic is unsatisfactory in this extreme circumstance, I believe that if the stall warning did contradict or reinforce pilot behaviour, it was a coincidence rather than a consequence (note the nose going down several times while the PF's SS is back at the stops)