Wait a second. I just found
something buried on page 194 of the final NTSB Accident Report appendix. Mini-scandal. Yellow alert. Call the Lone Gunmen of the X-Files.
Starting on Page 194 (appendix area) of the NTSB Report, it shows the BEA (Bureau d’Enquetes et d’Analyses’) requested the NTSB reverse their initial indictment of the phugoid damping in flare, saving Airbus from criticism. And the NTSB complied. Not if I was there. Must have upset a least a couple of NTSB pilots or flight control engineers on the team.
Originally, the early NTSB reports mentioned it all. Page 194 of the NTSB Report (the BEA French section) says:
"However, this accident demonstrates that, by offsetting the pilot's ANU sidestick inputs, the phugoid-damping feedback function of the alpha-protection mode could make flaring the airplane to attain the recommended ditching touchdown parameters more difficult." --- That statement didn't make it into the final report, but was in the appendix as a reported document change.
Then the BEA makes a strange remark:
"In reality, phugoid oscillations induce pitch variations that can have more severe consequences than a high vertical speed when entering the water."
Except for the fact that the flight is over way, way, before any phugoid oscillation can develop. Its flare for pete's sake. The BEA made a valid case for higher AGL use of the damping terms, but not for close to the water or ground during descent at flare.