Originally Posted by
bearfoil
... how expensive or complicated could it be that in and around the attitudes and flight aspect that flirt with Alpha Protection (to include both inadvertant and volitional), it would seem the computer could excuse the constraint program to ennable AoA alert, eg: AoA #1 Fail. This would (Could) be facilitated by a Pilot command that directed pertinent alerts relative to the manouver being tested?
Two parts to that:
Having a different system configuration for a test certainly is possible, but usually would be for the duration of the flight. We do something similar to activate certain displays and parameters during production flight test. But it's not pilot selected. Anything that is selectable means having to deal with failure conditions for the selection, which adds complexity to the overall failure case analysis.
Having the system know to not mask certain messages as a function of flight manoeuvre is not trivial. Indeed, the suggested criteria implicit in your suggestion - use proximity to High Alpha protect mode thresholds to post alpha-related failures - wouldn't have worked at all in this case, because the failure is preventing the system realising it should be in alpha-protection mode, so it also would leave the message masked.
Typically phase of flight is used to control messaging and masking - air/ground is one criteria often used, and "during takeoff" is another, for examples. In this case I can't think of any simple criteria other than to post all the time or not at all, because alpha-protection is active in all phases of flight, and could be encountered under virtually any conditions. So once you've decided "this must be posted if alpha-protection may be activated" then you're pretty much posting it all the time.