Safetypee.
The logical conclusion suggested by the data show the pilot acting within a perception of Normal Law controlling. Likewise PNF. Nothing contradictory is observed.
The script is that ECAM showed the degraded law immediately, pilot should have seen it, therefore they knew Law changed. There is nothing to show this. The only data we have shows the earliest they knew speeds were lost is at 2:10:16, and the earliest they knew about AL (and NOT AL2) is six seconds later, at 2:10:22. Since the PF acknowledged neither call, we can't conclude, (unless a PPRuNe poster) that he knew about UAS or law change. Throughout the accident time frame.
"We've lost the speeds?.." 2:10:16. This is an odd call, since it means plural. Did they lose "all indications" NO. Or did they lose a bug? Two bugs? Vs? It is not the appropriate recognition of UAS, and it certainly is unaccompanied with any drill. Yet most here assume it is a recognition of UAS? How's that?
2:10:09: "what's that?" BEA claims that is an exclamation by PNF in response to STALL warn. I take it as such, and rhetorical at that. Pilot starts his STALL recovery, and later, PNF says; "you are climbing..." now that might merely mean that PNF accepts PF's STALL recovery, and notices that he is climbing, not acceptable as Approach to Stall recovery was trained at the time.... It is quite possible both pilots see and accept the low speed, Stall Warn, and the recovery maneuver as necessary.
So yes, safetypee, there is not only reason to entertain the theory, but evidence to explain it as you do.
Last edited by Lyman; 29th Jul 2012 at 20:56.