Originally Posted by
CVividasku
Well, I found an incident on A350 where they did exactly that
You are talking about this incident:
https://assets.publishing.service.go...XWBC_09-22.pdf ?
Ok, then let's first define what I was talking about
: I was talking about direct law => direct stick to surface relationship. Well it isn't really direct (proportional), most of the times a LUT is between the stick and the surface position demand, plus rate limiting.
When we're comparing fly by wire with conventional controls in terms of deflection speed and latency of control surfaces (as a result of stick input), frankly we can only compare direct laws/modes... (As conventional/ mechanical is direct, which seems also beeing true for the 777 "normal law" in roll)
When flight control loops are present in the path behavior of the surfaces can't be directly derived from stick input. You were talking about the surface action on the ground i.e. direct law...
Now let's have a look on the incident (the one you were most likely talking about):
In red I marked the zone where the aircraft was most likely in direct law (ground mode). It's a guess, nowhere is mentioned if, or when the aircraft was in ground mode. I added black markings as an aid to compare both graphs better with each other with respect to time.
I don't see any of the behavior you mentioned, it's perfectly direct. No surface running after the stick and trying to reach the position even though the stick is travelling in the opposite direction. Everything before and after the red rectangle is with flight control loops beeing engaged...
(It's also pretty likely that the aircraft is already fading into normal law at the end of the rectangle as RA height is increasing, it rotated)