Lonewolf 50,
Sorry to steal your thunder.
Was just about to add a PS to my post: I venture to say that Airbus FBW aircraft in Pitch-Normal and Pitch-Alternate laws lack the speed-stability of a Chipmunk, B747 or, for that matter, the A310.
Regarding the argument about whether the PF would be better off with a reversion straight to Direct Law, I'm ambivolent. Once I was on the A320 (14 years), I never re-trained to a conventionally-controlled jet, although I did a bit of Chipmunk flying. However, many of our A320 copilots went off to get their commands on B757/767, or to the B747 for long-haul experience. Many found it difficult to adapt to doing their own pitch-trim, particularly if the A320 had been their first jet type.
Speaking generally, the need to pitch-trim, and maybe rudder-trim, while using sidestick and throttles doesn't seem any more difficult than one's first instrument rating exam on a light-twin – during which you're also expected to produce immaculate R/T calls. (Ah, the nostalgia...)
DozyWanabee,
It now seems clear that – unlike a pilot (see Smilin_Ed Jun13/2321z) – Pitch-Alternate continues trimming regardless of the speed or AoA. Having accepted that, the fact that the THS reached 12deg nose-up trim at the apogee does not surprise me, although I have no figures to confirm the assertion. You might be surprised how much nose-up trim is applied for a normal approach to land, even when flapless. (Again, I can't supply any figures.)
Last edited by Jetdriver; 14th Jun 2011 at 14:09.