No Lyman - the THS does not move much prior to the stall because there is no reason for it to move. The THS is a surface that is designed to compensate for long-term changes in attitude. It therefore follows that in order to move it a significant amount, the demand has to be made and held for a significant period of time.
Reading the traces, it does just that, when the PF goes from "making mayonnaise" with the sidestick (where it moved slightly following a general nose-up trend in the inputs made) to holding the thing back against the stops for the best part of a minute.
The computer did not order an overspeed protection sequence because there was no overspeed situation detected by the sensors and instruments. Are you seriously accusing the BEA of wilfully deleting an overspeed warning trace from the CVR? If so I'd have to see some pretty significant evidence before I'd be inclined to take you seriously. Your suppositions have now crossed the line into unadulterated fantasy.
I've decided to do as I've been asked and henceforth leave you alone. If that means this thread becomes an endless circle-jerk between yourself and the Michel Asseline fan club making up ever more lurid theories about how it must have been the computers at fault, I no longer care.
Last edited by DozyWannabe; 19th September 2011 at 23:02.