But the traces show that his inputs *were* having an effect, and that the aircraft was too aerodynamically unstable for the flight surfaces to have the effect he was expecting.
It's been pointed out more than once that the PF was a sailplane pilot, and as such should have been more likely to understand the basics of aerodynamics than many.
The question he should have asked himself (and his colleague) was "*Why* do I have no control of the aircraft?". The clues were there, and at that point there was still plenty of troubleshooting time.
[The desire to absolve the pilots I can understand (and to some degree is already backed up by their apparent lack of training), but why the continual grasping at straws to conclude the aircraft must have either forced them into making the mistake or suffered a failure above and beyond that we already know?]
Last edited by DozyWannabe; 19th May 2012 at 01:45.