Originally Posted by
bennos
This is the wrong thread for this, but AIUI this isn't really an accurate description of 447. The airplane entered Alternate Law because it determined it no longer had reliable airspeed data, and therefore the pilots should take full control of the plane. In the short period of time and confusion that followed, it seems likely the pilots made some bad calls. AIUI, at no time did the plane prevent the pilots from executing corrective actions.
There are several writeups. Here's one from wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447
You are correct in that the accident could have been prevented. The problem is that Airbus pilots were/are trained that their airplane will keep them out of trouble. Again, the FO responded to the situation as he was trained. He pulled back on the side-stick and thought the automation would handle it. Had they been in a Boeing, Bombardier, or Embraer and received a stall warning they would have been trained to pitch down and increase thrust immediately. There's no switching between "flight laws" on the other manufacturers. And if Airbus thinks it's a good idea to bounce between flight laws then they should make it very clear when it happens. They need a big visual and a loud oral announcement such as "I'm giving up, you give it a try".