Originally Posted by HN39
I don't think that I am evading any point of substance. I do have the feeling that, having clarified the facts, our discussion has reached the point were remaining differences are matters of opinion. Regarding matters of opinion, I am always reminding myself that I am an engineer participating in a pilot's forum. If there is a technical point to discuss, please be more specific.
"Do you really believe the PF would have felt the difference in his erratic movements of the sidestick?"
As elevator deflection is proportional to stick deflection, any erratic movements of that stick tend naturally to disappear especially when speed is still high or a price has to be paid on the human body.
Direct law allows the pilot to be more aware of the consequences of his inputs on the stick.
THS at 13 deg instead of 3 deg is an elephant in the room.
Direct law would not have allowed its presence.
Any release of the stick, not to talk about push command, would have provoked an immediate ND change in the attitude.
Direct law would not have allowed to go that easily to the stall and would have favorized an exit from that stall.
"Regarding the captain, the stall warning is loud enough to be heard through a closed cockpit door. The captain must have heard it when he entered the cockpit."
There is no doubt the captain has heard the stall warning, but more than anything there is no doubt the captain has heard the stall warning STOPPING which played enormously in his inadequate evaluation of the situation.
Direct law would have prevented that warning to erroneously quit.
Last point but not the least, the sidestick concept did hide to the PNF initially, and then to the captain + PNF what the PF inputs were and how those were inappropriate at times.
All those points had to be thouroughly developed by the BEA, and not only superficially for some and completely ignored for others.
As written earlier, that law that trim that stall warning logic and that sidestick concept worked against that crew that night.