Talked to a former Boeing 737-200 pilot who flew for Silk Air. He was cruising in IMC one night in that part of the world and due to a mix-up in radio frequencies was unaware he was trailing a Boeing 747 freighter about ten miles ahead. Suddenly his aircraft was affected initially by mild turbulence followed by an extremely sharp wing drop to 90 degrees angle of bank. The AP disconnected at the same time. He was able to unload and rapidly regain control and roll wings level. Discussed this incident with a current 737-800 pilot who had a similar experience when being vectored behind an A330 ahead. On this occasion the 737 rolled rapidly to more than 60 degrees angle of bank and the AP disengaged. Weather was VMC and the pilot rolled back to wings level.
When practicing unusual attitude recoveries in the simulator some instructors restrict UA manoeuvers to be within the legal definition of an unusual attitude which among other parameters includes bank angle more than 45 degrees. The perceived reason being fidelity is not assured beyond those figures.
If real aircraft affected by wake turbulence behind a heavy aircraft have finished up at extreme bank angles well beyond official UA parameters, it strikes me as the ostrich head in the sand approach to pretend it will never happen and thus let the unfortunate crew and passengers wear it on the day. Prompt and ideally flawless recovery on instruments is the mark of the true professional pilot. There is no shortage of examples where unusual attitudes have resulted from a wake turbulence encounter. Yet because simulator fidelity may not be guaranteed, we choose not to equip the crew with the instrument flying skills to recover from an extreme wake turbulence encounter. I think that is wrong in principle. No doubt there are other points of view.
Question: With Airbus aircraft, does the inbuilt protection prevent instant roll beyond a specified figure regardless if the aircraft is being manually flown or on autopilot at time of jet upset due wake turbulence?