Originally Posted by
mike-wsm
Yes, Hazelnuts, that is what happened, ten degrees in a minute, putting the airframe in a condition which defied efforts at recovery.
What efforts at recovery ? Stall was, it appears, never diagnosed, so how was stall recovery "defied" ?
In fact, PF's response (if it was that, and not mere coincidence) to stall warning was toga and
pull. [That is also not an airbus thing - see recent Colgan (Q400) and Ethiopian (737) crew actions].
But why did the electronics not limit the speed of movement to a tenth or a hundredth of this? I cannot see any need for a faster response when at high altitude and cruising.
At high altitude and cruising with all systems normal, HAL would indeed have limited things. Trouble is that in this case HAL has concluded the air data (from all units) is invalid.
HAL effectively removed any such limits because it was no longer sure whether it was "high altitude and cruising" or not. It handed control, and the job of figuring where the plane was and what it was doing, to the pilots to use real intelligence (which "HAL" in this case does _not_ have) to figure out. They failed at that.