Originally Posted by
RetiredF4
[...]
It is
not aimed at protected Fly-by-Wire aircraft.
There is no need for this type of continuation
training on protected aircraft, although a
general knowledge of the principles involved is
useful for every pilot"
It was not the idea of airbus alone, however, on the boing page it looked somewhat different.
[...]
"The article focuses on Airbus and Boeing airplanes that do not have electronic flight controls, commonly known as fly-by-wire. However, when a fly-by-wire airplane is in a degraded control law (mode), the recovery techniques are appropriate. Additionally, certain conditions can upset any airplane and the basic principles of recognition and recovery still apply regardless of the flight control architecture."
There may be less difference than you think, and may be down to semantics and/or translation. Your first bolded statement was unanimously agreed by A & B reps (and test pilots). The second, from boeing, does not actually contradict it, and effectively says the same as Airbus do elsewhere. An Airbus in Alternate or Direct laws is a
non-protected FBW aircraft, therefore, as the Boeing quote says, the same recognition and recovery applies.
Alternate Law
[...]
The handling characteristics within the normal flight envelope, are identical in
pitch with normal law.
Outside the normal flight envelope, the PF must take appropriate preventive
actions to avoid losing control, and/or avoid high speed excursions. These
actions are the same as those that would be applied in any case where non
protected aircraft
That's from Airbus FCTM (admittedly an old copy downloaded from somewhere or other). Says effectively same as boeing, accounting for it probably being translated from French.
To me though, the real proof is still in the engineering - those that designed and built the buses put a stall warning system in, and I'm absolutely sure they didn't do it because it looked pretty or to get the weight up to the design spec.