rudderrudderrat
With the benefit of hindsight of AF447, I still believe it would be better to have had the stall warning on continuously whilst they were stalled, rather than be turned off simply because IAS<60 kts. It must have sounded like a spurious "computer" glitch - and hence be initially disregarded.
I agree with you there.
However it is better to know that you have a false stall warning around 60 kts during the take off than only receiving it once you get airborne with only WOW logic.
I'm not sure I follow the logic here. It would surely be better to have no false stall warnings at all? I stand to be corrected, but I thought that the present AI system has no WOW logic for stall warning, just the 60 kt discriminant on valid AoA signals. That way if there is a faulty AoA signal it becomes apparent immediately one passes 60 kts, but random nuisance warnings are suppressed, so doesn't that satisfy your requirements?