Lyman (#757), agreed, it’s not all about trim, it’s about force, but that comes via trim in conventional aircraft.
Thence please read my last para (#753):
“Re coupled sticks; it could be incorrect to accept that stick position, coupled or not represents what the aircraft is doing. Checking, monitoring, and establishing the true situation requires looking at the output of control systems – what the aircraft is actually doing.”
Do you mean that with coupled sticks, and both full back, this would indicate the aircraft flight path – which with AF447 was actually descending?
There have been accidents and incidents where a nose-up mis-trim and full forward stick resulted in a nose-up attitude and climb; the significant difference with AF447 is the aerodynamics, one condition was not stalled, the other was.
Pilots have to assess the situation, determine the aerodynamic state of the aircraft and then act accordingly. Control stick input position does not indicate aerodynamic state, although within suitable confines of trim position it will determine an aerodynamic state.
Re your loud “Had PNF SEEN THE STICK FULL BACK, he would have sussed the problem........period.”
Then, you will have to explain why any other pilot might have questioned why the aircraft was not climbing with the stick full back. This might have been the dilemma which AF447 crew were pondering, to the point of distraction.
The aircraft was descending, the stick was back, but the descent was not arrested. Unfortunately, between the ‘up’ and the subsequent ‘down’, the aerodynamic sate changed (stall), the trim condition changed, and thus the required control input changed – apparently this was not understood.