Originally Posted by
CONF iture
Most probably - But the limit of efficacity for the elevators alone is reached earlier, and the stall cannot develop in such a pronounced way.
It can if you hold it there, and it was held there most of the way down.
Obviously there's a limit to how useful sim experience is outside of the envelope, but with consistent stick-forward it is possible to counteract the autotrim with plenty of time to spare - if it is noticed.
It HAS to be analyzed by the BEA - Where are they ?
I suspect it was analyzed - and summarized in terms of the difficulty of pulling out of the stall if not trained to recognize it in the report. Accident reports tend to summarize rather than detail every experiment performed to the Nth degree - otherwise they'd routinely run into thousands of pages.
Case in point - the NTSB did not include the details of their experiments on the 737 rudder PCU in the original reports on UA535 and USAir427 because they could not prove a link. Only when a link was proven years later were those reports revised.
To NOT trim an aircraft in a stall is a rule for all - Why obviously Airbus thinks differently ?
Well, they did put a hard autotrim limit on the A320 - it'd be a tragic irony if they didn't do it on the widebodies in response to pilot complaints regarding lack of full authority.
Who is leading the investigation ?
The BEA ... or Airbus ?
The BEA of course. Airbus are at more risk from a lack of transparency as opposed to secrecy.