Hi,
I found in 447 threads surgeons, anthropologists, organists and many others i.e. not just "technically oriented minds". This was a
surprise for me.
Proactive technicians (i include myself) prefer to "anticipate" than to be caught in
surprises.
Surprises coming from
her sometimes (perhaps many times) challenge us. In my life i had
surprises from GF's, machines of many types (including GA and old birds), wife and many women.
Surprises can be "controlled" by
Redundancy.
I will "throttle back" my commenting on man machine interface in this thread saying:
1) Considering the factual information we could access and the results from the high synergy discussions we had.
2) Considering the likelihood of 447 crew had some surprises in their last 4 minutes of their life, working hard.
3) Considering despite all their efforts they expressed some "surprise" on SPEEDS.
4) Considering they ever had been able to know the AoA when they were falling.
5) Considering they expressed some surprise with the fact their efforts didn't succeed.
6) Considering the surprise (to many) on location of 447 wreckage, so near LKP.
7) Consider the surprise the protected plane stalled.
8) Considering how fast the plane was doomed
9) Considering the surprise for us to learn they barely understood what really occurred
10) Considering the surprise expressed near the end
And last but not least, considering the
surprising reaction (comprehensible) on a AoA indicator and to an (early warning) UAS indicator here in the thread. And after fundamenting my conclusion from an anthropologist thought:
I would suggest to consider:
1) A resource to provide EARLY WARNING on impending "factors" like UAS, AoA and also perhaps, REC MAX "nearing".
2) To study the best way to implement the 3 above resources in a "man machine interface" context. If it would be aural, flashing display, redundant, etc. must be done by an R&D on that IMO important issue. We can only guess here. Is not our "problem".
After saying that i appreciated the comments from Chris Scott, mm43, Bear, MB, gums, PJ2, OC, Of, chrisN, rgb, jcjeant, CONF iture, lomapaseo, A33Zab, OK465, BOAC, bubers44, HN39, CJ, safetypee, DW, Linktrained, rh, TD and recently Diagnostic and from some others, including via PM channels. I took all comments into account.
I frankly think there are some important issues to be discussed on the "interface" so i considered, some time ago a thread on the issue.
The reasons i tried to show some points (i consider) relevant to 447, i will concentrate in the
Man machine interface and anomalies thread.
It will be another
surprise if the final report doesn't consider the influence of this A/C interface on the HF aspects when addressing the "
surprising" attitudes of PF, PM and even the Captain on last flight of F-GZCP.
My interest is in "safety" and my only agenda here in PPRuNe is try to contribute to this important objective:
Aviation Safety
Through a minimum of
Surprises 
Always when possible.