Except that there is no way to do it ... but good luck.
Posts above appear to disagree with that? I appreciate you appear to have a grudge against Airbus and it's products, but does it really extend to accusing Airbus of writing Test Schedules asking the impossible
Did you get that it was not possible to determine if this message was really presented to the crew ... ?
I do, but the likelihood is it was, and anyway, there was other, more compelling evidence.
Then I am sure the mere 320 line pilot you are would like to know something is wrong with its AOA data before he blindly and religiously follows his Airbus GPWS procedure ...
I am not sure I would? The QF A380 incident, IIRC, is tending towards reducing "ECAM Messages" for everything? I spend enough of my time on the A320 dealing with spurious, unnecessary, and transitory ECAM messages. There needs to be a balance in life, some level of trust in designers and certification procedures re "fault tree analysis". To have an AoA problem such as Perpignan, ignore the signs there was such an issue, and then require a Max Perf GPWS warning I consider "improbable".
Is the Airbus FBW perfect? Of course not. Has it stood the test of time well, for the first mass market FBW commercial airliner? Yes. It has been improved, minor faults ironed out. I think we are now past the stage where the machine is the target of "blame" and "fault" - indeed for the A320 series I do not think it ever was. The FBW is well in the mature "refinement" phase.
The training and oversight / management of the operators would be a more productive target - IMHO. Perpignan an unfortunate, but clear, example - despite Airbus' efforts, man proved it is not uncrashable
