Penko, I guess I am with you.
Lack of good accurate speed control suggests to me that the crew were close to overloaded by the circumstances.
Those who suggest that reversion to direct law may have produced a better outcome are really suggesting that, after configuring to direct law the pilot is now capable of flying the aircraft beyond the buffet boundary, at the lift boundary, at the same time avoiding the stall boundary. Something he would have to learn in a one off situation at 150 feet on a power off ditching approach.
I would be somewhat surprised if any pilots, other that Airbus test pilots, would have a clue how close to the stall boundary they are flying, having penetrated the buffet boundary. It is not in the airline pilots job description - nor should it be.
I can make no comment on whether there was sufficient energy remaining for any significant ROD reduction following the direct law scenario. Without knowledge of the characteristics of the CL/Alpha curve it is a big ask to assume any significant amount of extra lift was available by increasing Alpha by a couple of degrees.
Full marks to Sully for making a wise decision to ditch, he was ably supported by Airbus and those who certificated the product, a great result from a most unenviable situation.
Last edited by zzuf; 22nd May 2017 at 09:51.