Originally Posted by
predictorM9
I just read the leaked (French) experts report on AF447 (I won't put the link here, just google it) and it explicitly mentions that the plane may not have been recoverable at all because of the alternate 2b law, which limits the deflection of the elevator when the stick is full nose down deflection.
Did you read the previous Threads on AF447?
If so you would have seen that this topic has been discussed ad nauseum.
Conclusion: We will not know for sure if
it would have been recoverable once the AoA was >>30°.
Nor will BEA, even Airbus will probably not know for sure if it was recoverable past that point.
Some argued it was rather likely it would have been technically recoverable (I tend to belong to this group) some concluded it wasn't.
Drawing a conclusion from looking at 2s of SS input is pointless.
It took more than half a minute of predominantly NU input to initiate this condition. It is safe to assume getting the Trim and Elevator down again would have taken at least the same dedication in the opposite direction. This hasn't taken place in this case so it's all guess work.
Airbus might have a clue at least regarding the logic for the deflection of the control surfaces. But even that won't give a defnitive answer re the recoverability once being at the extreme AoAs.
But:
No Airliner is tested nor required to be recoverable in this attitude. Even the trusty old 737 might not be in certain conditions.
This is so far outside any tested and validated Flight Envelope and no one seems willing to sacrifice an airliner plus crew in order to find out during flight test.
Would you volunteer ?
Conclusion: Don't fly at AoA's of 45° !!!
Simples.