Quote from gums:
The guy screwed up...
As a general observation, I think even the A320's strongest critics in this discussion have never disagreed that no flypast should be conducted with passengers, that 100 ft is too low at any speed, and that this one was ill-conceived, badly planned, and poorly executed - in a number of ways. The Karsenty video proves that beyond reasonable doubt each time we replay it.
...All the flight control laws discussion is "noise".
Given the general consensus that has been evident since the first couple of pages of this thread, some of us have taken the opportiunity to try and improve our understanding of flight at high AoAs in general, and the characteristics of the Airbus alpha-prot mode in particular - including aspects of its certification. Not only was this a unique accident in public transport, but all the gathered evidence provides unique opportunities for study.
Quote from Dozy Wannabe:
"... ultimately it comes back to the original conclusion - the aircraft was too low, too slow and corrective action was applied too late."
Assuming you are referring to the execution in relation to the plan, you are right on your first and last "conclusions", but wrong again on the second. The reason the crew decided to keep the thrust at idle - and then left it there until too late - was that the a/c arrived over the display area too fast - not too slow.
