In article .com,
says...

Yes, the computers did think the pilot was landing, but the crash was
caused by his being too low and slow. (See other posts for more info
on the latter.)

The Airbus software has modes where its flight control computer laws
are quite different. Some of those computer laws are divided into
Ground, Flight and Landing (Flare) phases.

One claim is that he was trying to demonstrate that the airplane was
unstallable. He had reportedly done this demonstration several times
before at a slightly higher altitude, and it had always worked. Why?
Because the Airbus has what's known as Alpha Protection (pitch related)
and Alpha Floor (thrust related). Too little thrust, at too high an
angle of attack (AOA), and its computers automatically kick in and
override the pilot.

The reason the automatic protection didn't work this time was because
he went below 100', so the computers switched to Landing Mode. That
doesn't mean they do an autoland. It means they think the pilot is
landing the plane and their rules change. The Alpha Floor is disabled
so that a landing is possible at all. By the time the pilot advanced
the throttles himself, it was too late.

In addition, another Landing Mode kicks in when the Bus passes below
50' going down to 30', as he did. The computer starts changing the
stick reference for landing, so that if you have the stick pulled
back', that position soon becomes the neutral spot. This is supposed
to force the pilot to pull back more for flaring.




Well - we are getting much closer to a defensible response here.
We can accept then that the plane crashed because the pilot flew too low and
advanced the throttles too late. Contributing factors include the pilot's
incomplete comprehension of the aircraft's systems. What the investigation had
to determine then, was whether the pilot's poor comprehension was due to poor
application of his training, or whether the training itself was inadequate.

This is a key factor - I say for the benefit of some contributors who have
little or no understanding of aviation technology but who publish regularly as
resident experts - it is an established criterion of accident investigation
that pilots may be judged according to their application of specific training.
If a pilot, faced with an unexpected situation does something other than what
his training suggests, and the result is positive, then nothing is said. But if
the pilot does not act in accordance with his training and the result is
negative, then it is fair play to attribute it to pilot error. Through this
model, it is possible to evaluate the performance of the pilot, and the quality
or pertinence of the training;

As an accessory consideration, it would be expected that the aircraft's systems
would also be examined, and improvements proposed if and where appropriate.



But then, all of the above is moot when one considers, as resident experts have
explained to us, that Airbus aircraft are not controllable through pilot input
.. . .

GF