[cmurf]

This is such a bullshit response. You don't answer any of my questions. You proceed to armchair pilot. You use terms you cannot completely understand from a big picture yet claim to come at this from a big picture perspective. That's so out of order.

Do you know a power reduction causes a nose down moment and actually makes the problem worse?

What does "turning auto trim on and off" mean? Are you referring to the you're toggle it the stab trim switches flipped between normal and cutoff? If the latter you are wrong, zero evidence that happened a few times.

There was no -2 G vertical acceleration.

What you are doing is in my view a mental disturbance. You are using terms as if you know what you're talking about. You don't. You are a bullshitter.

Please stop.

[CorvusCrypto]

Okay. Calm down for 1. Also the prelim data is there to review. The graph shows clearly there's a large plunge and there absolutely was a negative g report in the prelim showing that at the final few moments the trim settings from the FCC gave another correction. As for the cutoff, the report annotations tell you when they toggled the cutout switch. I went back and yeah actually you're right it was only once to cutoff and back to normal sorry for that mistake. However the overspeed is still supported from the data and yes the data shows vertical g forces and at the end there was a lurch of -2 Gs before total loss. It's on page 27.

As for less speed causing more nose down moment, yeah but at the same time they weren't in a descent for that portion either, nor were they nose down (this from page 26). The data shows they were oscillating though climbing slightly while they were overspeeding. In this case it could have helped to reduce the forces at play. I think it was more that they were just busy and left thrust settings where they were from takeoff.