@franzl (RF4) and TD:
The test was primarily to determine *systems* behaviour, and does not attempt to answer questions outside of that scope. The question was whether forward stick would be enough to either overcome or counteract the THS position in the time available, for which the answer was affirmative.
In addition, the recovery procedures we attempted were performed in the early phases of the stall - right after to the point where the THS rolled back. We did not hold the stall to the point where the sim behaviour would deviate significantly from the real thing due to the data from the real aircraft never having been gathered in those conditions.
TD - you're absolutely right about the BEA's remit, and that extends also to other factors that some on here complained about (e.g. pinger behaviour and search/recovery post-mortem). The BEA is an aircraft accident investigation bureau, they are not specialists in deep-ocean recovery, nor was stall recovery assessment part of their duties in this case. That getting the nose down, building up speed and returning the wings to flight is the proper stall recovery procedure should be a given. I would only expect them to comment on that aspect if any systems or airframe anomalies had presented themselves during the course of the investigation.
Originally Posted by
Lyman
My problem with BEA in this area has to do with their lack of substantiation that the STALL WARN was not heard, ignored, or actively disregarded by crew.
Given that it does not seem to have been acknowledged at any point, either verbally in terms of "we have a stall warning" or physically in terms of definite attempts to fly a stall recovery procedure - I'd say it's a fairly valid inference.
Because when redacting or witholding, some purpose and conclusion needs to be stated, lest the public be left wondering. I wonder about the CVR, of course. It is a mystery.
They have stated more than once that the only redactions from the transcript relate to non-pertinent statements (i.e anything not relating to the conduct of the flight). This was borne out in the unofficial book, which restored these.
If you're trying to infer that they have redacted pertinent content for nefarious purposes, don't be shy - come out, say it and explain your reasoning.