Will repost my question here as there was no response in the accident and close calls section. My question relates to the multiple tail strike incident in italy in 2009.
With its high nose-up attitude of 15° the aircraft, having gained sufficient lift, became airborne at an airspeed of around 110kt. The pitch increased to 23° and, at 125kt, a stall warning sounded for 5s. The jet switched from direct to alternate flight-control law and a cabin altitude warning, indicating pressurisation problems from the damaged fuselage, sounded as it climbed through 9,750ft.
(source: FlightGlobal -
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ntinue-444260/)
Not an Airbus driver, but can anyone in the know explain to me why the Airbus degrades its flight controls to alternate and direct law in a situation like this where there obviusly is nothing physically wrong with the aircraft (all probes, vanes and FLCC's working as they should), and the only issue is an CG well aft of the approved?
Degrading the flight controls, removing the protections and changing the way the aircraft handels and feels in a situation like this is IMHO only going to stress the pilots more and reduce the chances of a safe recovery.
Whats the logic here?