ttcse re #2830 – “… sit with a long duration stall and not try to recover only because they lacked instruments …”
I did not intend my post to read that way.
The issue, as with the 737 accident/incident (and speculation on the A320 accident), is that with an ‘over-trimmed’ nose-up condition there may be insufficient nose-down elevator power to affect a stall recovery. The stall / trim condition might be further aggravated by the apparent aft cg.
I have sought further understanding in
http://www.pprune.org/flight-testing...ml#post5019448
A characteristic of some FBW aircraft appears to be that in comparison with conventional controls there is a lack of control/trim-force feedback on the stick. Thus for pitch trim, the trim position (with respect to balanced flight – auto trim follow-up in normal law) has to be determined from a scale. Thus do pilots need to be aware a suitable trim range for stall recovery, and what effect has ALT law on this situation?
The above is far from fact, hence my questions in the other forum.
The crew might have been aware of a stall if the AOA provided an input for indication / alert.