Dozy--
The best and simplest solution I can think of is therefore to latch the current stall warning state when the data becomes invalid, and unlatch it when it becomes valid again.
OK, don't call it an "algorithm bug," call it a "specification," who really cares(?), BUT, otherwise, it appears that everyone who has weighed-in on this shortcoming appears to agree! How 'bout THAT??? In speculation mode, it is possible that the designers/programmers never foresaw this scenario. Ya can't think of
everything, after all (until it happens).
There's no doubt in my "mind,", albeit no proof, that the on-and-off behavior of the SW did not help the pilot's understanding of the sitch.
Now.
@Organfreak - it's got nothing to do with being right, it's to do with the fact that left to their own devices we'd have "yokes r teh awesoem, sidesticks drool" from the same four or five posters over and over again with no dissenting opinion. I respect pilots greatly, but it doesn't mean that they're always right, nor does it mean that one should genuflect before them by rote.
I'd be the last one to genuflect, although I have tremendous respect for ATPLs in general. OK, say you're right: it's the same old culprits (I wouldn't know). Consider this: again, I have no flying experience and no axe to grind, but I came blowing in here out of the blue, and immediately and independently saw the sense of the yokes argument. Again, no proof, but what those in favor have said makes eminent sense to me, and does not appear to be the mindless, drooling AB criticism that you pretend it to be. That's not nice. Some of the reasoning has been quite sophisticated and well thought-out. Seems that you can't acknowledge that.
OK, OK, public disclosure: I
do live in Boeing Country, but I have plenty of problems with them, too, especially after they basically let MD take them over in a management coup. Mostly, all Boeing has done for ME is to keep me awake at night with their incessant engine testing. But I digress. [where's the dang belly-laugh icon???]