Hi DW - yes, there is so much valuable and informed writing in those threads. Yes, it takes effort and time to research, but this isn't an idle discussion about any accident - this is a watershed event in a number of ways, some seen and predicted, many, though, not.
As just one of many observers and part-time contributors who has learnt tremendously from others, I would invite those truly interested by this accident, especially those who manage, train and / or fly transport equipment, to visit or return to those threads and read them from start to finish.
To make best sense of the threads, keep the "long line" in view. Despite meanderings and some rabbit trails, many of which are worth careful thought in themselves, there is a main "story" here and it is really worth pondering.
BTW, I have not set aside the "virtual reality" discussion! Time, and perennial commitments . . . !
Capn Bloggs;
The parameters labeled as such do seem illogical but they are labeled conventionally in flight data work, by their direct result at the point of action, so to speak. So, it isn't Nose-up, it is Tail-down, and the parameter is labeled with a "minus" value; the same is true with the THS, the sidestick parameters and so on.
Regarding the sidestick not spending much time in the NU position, by the data, the sidestick spends most of the 4 minutes from event to impact in the "minus", tail-down, (NU) position, and the elevator spends almost all its time NU:
