That's my understanding. The philosophy is that something must have happened to put you in that situation and reverting to alternate law gives you some protection if the cause of the upset is not fully determined.
Lemurian. Thanks for that link. I knew the article existed but didn't know where. It is an area of training which is neglected. It's something we used to practice in the RAF a lot, but we had the aircraft and the resources and it was something we used to drum into the students. The upset recovery was and needed to be automatic and swift in it's application. However, it's quite possible these days for someone to go through the training system and not be exposed to the techniques required. I did a simulator not long ago where an upset was introduced. I was quite suprised at the response of the PF. His recovery was far from effective and would have put us in an unviable position if it had been for real. Having said that, the Airbus reconfiguration control laws give you a lot of portection.
Jack. Hi again, how's it going? Those videos are good, but the one regarding crossover has lost a bit of favour since the American A300 accident at JFK in early 2002. The pilot in the AA advocates agressive use of the rudder to achive crossover control, but it seems that's what the A300 crew were trying to do when they overloaded the fin and broke it off.