Thanks MFS.
If we consider two situations, first the conventional a/c with manual control, and second the technologically enhanced a/c - FBW manual or auto, or conventional with autos, then there are differences in the trimmed state approaching the stall.
With ‘conventional manual’ the crew command trim and are aware of the trimmed state via stick force.
With the ‘enhanced’ situation, an auto/conventional aircraft will probably revert to manual at Vss, except, as you indicate, that the trim may be in an unfortunate position. The significance of this is that crews probably have never seen the situation before because of the method of demonstrating training stalls – no trim below 1.3Vs. This is not to say that training is inadequate, more that the systems are ‘remiss’ in not handing over the aircraft in a suitable trimmed condition;- hence the push force during the recovery in the AMS 737 accident, the UK incident, and perhaps a component of the Q400 accident.
Where training (demonstration/simulation) stalls are flown in FBW aircraft they are made in the basic control law; do these aircraft suffer inappropriate trim conditions?
If ‘follow up’ auto trim is disabled in the basic law, then thereafter how are the crew aware of the trimmed condition? All the crew might do is to refer to the trim wheel or ECAM display, but this might be of little value without knowledge of the required trim setting ‘during a stall’ (the 1.3VS equivalent). I assume that there is no force feedback, and that manual trim is still enabled. Is this electric or only mechanical?
Perhaps this problem was a contributor to the recent A320 flt test accident.