Originally Posted by
bubbers44
He must have thought he was stall protected and forgot he was in alternate law.
This keeps coming up, in various forms, and I'm not sure I understand why.
If never trained in alt law I can see why he maybe missed the display and pnf call of it, and even the stall warning didn't give him a clue...
but why was he anywhere near protection envelope in the first place ? The protections are there, I thought, to stop inadvertently straying outside the envelope, and (some modes) to give maximum performance within the protection envelope for specific circumstances - e.g. emergency terrain avoidance. What lead PF to desire maximum climb performance and
then assume he was protected ?
Or put another way, you say PF was thinking:
"I can pull back as hard as I like to get maximum climb, because the plane will protect me"
But before that must be the thought:
"I need to pull back hard to climb fast (for several 000 ft) because... <???>"
This is right at the start, before the stall, to be clear.
What's the blank ? Surely unless we can fill that in the thought-he-was-protected is not relevant, and we are back to LOC in pitch being inadvertent. What little CVR there is seems also to support that - PNF says "why are you climbing" not "pull up mountain ahead". PF response seems to indicate he doesn't believe or understand he is climbing, PNF then insists he is.