night_flight99 -
DC-ATE, in this instance it was a system of a fbw aircraft. If they had done a test on a conventional aircraft it would have been a stall protection system. The point is surely that it shouldn't have been done at that part of the envelope at all! FBW is a very effective concept of aircraft design but even it can't stop the human error chain and its ability to over ride protections, regrettably sometimes inappropriately.
Given a choice between a low energy state in a product of Airbus or McDonnell Douglas and I will take the airbus product every time!!
As I stated earlier, I'm not sure a test of the stick shaker is required in a transfer situation. But, nevertheless, they would not have done it at low altitude...hopefully.
And.....FBW might very well be an "effective concept" of aircraft design. But's let remember WHY we have it. FMCs and EFIS and all the other acronyms that would take a whole page to list, are just bringing the head of the pilot inside the airplane, when it should be either outside or watching FLIGHT instruments. Computers telling a pilot when do start down, when to do this and that are doing nothing to enhance the ability to FLY the airplane or make it safer.
As to being in a "low energy state"; not sure I follow that. You shouldn't ever be in that state. Pilots are getting into those conditions because they're paying too much attention to things other than flight instruments. And you should never be in a position to have some computer tell you what to do.
OK.....enough.