One small point of disagreement, WRT a deep stall.
The pilots, per the report, generally provided input to the controls to keep the nose up. I infer from that THEY kept the plane stalled, as opposed to a disrupted airflow over the stabilator keeping the plane in a true deep stall.
Sure it looks like one, and indeed it may have been one. but it also could have been ‘caused’ by continued ‘stick back’ input from the crew.
I don’t recall suggesting anything about a “deep stall” condition, but the information I’ve read implies that condition. It also implies the crew’s actions were counter to their line training and type training, indeed everything they would have been taught from their first flight. This implies a great deal of confusion on the flight deck. The cause(s) of this ought to be , (and most probably are), the subject of intensive study.
I’m unfamiliar with the Airbus, but swept wing T-tail jets can enter a high angle of attack condition where the wing blanks airflow over the elevators. Its possible in such a condition the crew wouldn’t have gotten the expected response to control inputs leading them to erroneous conclusions as to the nature of the failure they were experiencing. It occurs to me any configuration change resulting in a “pitch down” such as deploying the landing gear and/or flaps might have corrected this possible condition.
Would the Airbus integrated/electronic flight control/management system permit such actions ? >PS