Ok, enough of this THS speculation.. I (and others) mooted extreme concerns over this (misuse case) style of behaviour hundreds of posts ago... a few others didn't agree, or thought we were grasping at straws - fair enough.
Hopefully, and looking at BEA wording, it will not be ignored and pushed to one side -
everything is relevant, even irrevelances (in that they are tagged irrelevant!)
Now, we can look a bit further away... ?
I can certainly see that calls for some 'neutering or neutralising' THS logic in 'apparent' stall situations raises eyebrows, mine as well.
What goes right back to basic aircraft certification requirements in the 60's, is the stick-pusher. Indeed, RudderRudderRat just suggsted a stick shaker mode would be somethingt that makes some sense
So far,
AFAIK, certification requirements mandated combined shaker and stick pushers for only those aircraft with deep (e.g. potentially irrecoverable) characteristics.
I would think AoA measurement has become easily reliable enough for this to become a safe option for all airliners above a certain size... the prelimary vibration itself could quite possibly have been enough to shake PF out of what may have tunnel vision.
THS activity and detected position would automatically have to be become part of stick shaker activity.
Airtren.. damn good summing up above
