Comment Re:Pilot Proof Airbus? (Score 1) 132
I am not sure why you think the part you copied from the transcript contradicts what I said. The stall warnings sounded multiple times, whenever airspeed got high enough (i.e. the pilot was doing the right thing) to make the system believe the readings.
The pitot tubes failed because of icing. There would be no ice when they were recovered so "working correctly" isn't exactly true as the conditions of the accident were not in place when they were recovered.
The pitot tubes were working correctly for the majority of the accident, precisely because there was no ice on them for the majority of the accident. Yet the computer system stuck in alternate law, encouraging the pilot to do the entirely wrong thing.
Do you know what happens when one of the pitot tubes fails in these conditions? It give erratic readings. So the autopilot cannot determine which one of the 3 readings is correct. It's not "panicking" if it is meant to do that.
It was programmed to panic. How else would it do it? It is not sentient.
It is a classic case of throwing the error at the operator. Computer systems used to do that all the time, but today we do better.