For Phoenix,
- "The jet has really great aero to get into a stall without obvious shaking, buffet, wing rock and so forth." gums
"Airbus considers that no additional alerts about low speed/energy situations is needed at high altitude because large altitude loss due to stall cannot occur on Airbus Fly-By-Wire aircraft.
Well this accident proved that all the sky is not enough." Phoenix
Are these quotes related? The jet ended up with full authority (HS) Nose Up, and full thrust on both engines. (One assumes elevators were still available, though not of equal "authority..")
Are those two conditions conducive to maintenance of "horizontal" aspect? Failing one, or both, would the jet have dropped its nose and become easier to recover a controllable flight path?
Does that relate to an approved (regulatory) performance at Stall? I ask because you state "Airbus considers...no additional alerts (cues?)....(are) is needed at high altitude....etc.)?
Because what is suggested is even though the aircraft may be stalled, "no large altitude loss can occur on Airbus FBW"
I guess I'm putting you on the spot. This aspect of the accident, IMO, is not addressed.
I think that if most posters are satisfied that "the aircraft performed as commanded", then the investigation is not complete. So many legitimate conclusions are foreclosed with the lack of design consideration discussion, regulatory expectations, and a solid basis for "safety takeaway" is not possible?