> You'd have to physically break through the jammed control mechanism to get to that point, otherwise, they're mechanically linked up to a certain amount of pre

> You'd have to physically break through the jammed control mechanism to get to that point, otherwise, they're mechanically linked up to a certain amount of pressure. That's what I said. Interestingly, the BEA pointed out that the dual input rate is the same on Airbuses and Boeings (cf. https://bea.aero/fileadmin/user_upload/F-GSQJ_finalreport_EN.pdf https://bea.aero/fileadmin/user_upload/F-GSQJ_finalreport_EN..., page 47). Lack of communication and stressful environment here too, maybe coupled commands would not have saved AF447 after all… > Anyways, the point is, assigning blame in this way is petty and weird on the authors part. I agree, but you're doing the same thing as the author of the article: taking the fact that the captain pulled on the stick, and try to find something to blame the plane. Unlike in your car example where the steering authority is “suddenly” reduced, the flight envelope protection system is always here, and pilots are trained accordingly. Full stick back is not uncommon on Airbuses, e.g. in a windshear escape manoeuvre. And as pointed out by others in this thread, it was actually the correct action. Oh well, if alpha max was 1° higher on the 320, maybe the landing would have been softer.