So is the answer MORE automation?
So we all seem to agree that +10 degrees NU in a transport category aircraft at any other flight phase than take-off is likely a bad idea?
Clearly there are reasonable 'limits' for negative climb rates -10K/min is not one in my book.
Ditto for AoA....
I think we can all sketch a flight envelope within which things are likely going well, outside of which something is likely not so good.
Sounds like the protections (limits) of Normal Law?
Normal Law works when all the expected inputs are provided and believed to valid, and is supported by autoflight systems.
However in Alternate it was possible to get the pitch to +16 degrees with a sink rate of -10K/min. Unfortunately the primary computing system in the loop (the human) did not see the flaw and it would seem did not take the appropriate recovery action (or if it was attempted, it was not sustained enough to cause recovery).
It seems to me that there is a pretty strong argument for a secondary layer of automation that would step in and prevent a sustained abnormal attitude. Sort of like a more sophisticated "stick-pusher", that would override the pilot input (if incorrect) and provide the most appropriate recovery inputs. ND stick in this case...
I'm sure this is going down swimmingly well with the majority of pilots reading this, but I do not fear "poking the bear". We HAVE to do something to prevent a momentary misjudged few seconds worth of incorrect control input sending a jet full of people to the bottom of the Ocean.
OK, so may be none of 'you' are comfortable with yet another layer of 'protection' having control authority over the aircraft? Then at least consider an advanced warning system that will take all the critical input parameters (AoA, altitude, pitch, speed, etc) and provide a prioritized audible warning cue - "Abnormal AoA - control input Nose Down required"...
At least then the PF has something prompting him to THINK is this input right?
From the available information we have so far one critical aspect seems to have been missing - something questioning the control inputs of the PF? This extrapolates from the prior discussion related to control stick deflection (or more accurately NOT) for the PNF.
Looking at the sales figures from the Paris Airshow it would seem Airbus is entirely unscathed by any fallout from AF447... something like 726 aircraft sold for $72B, leaving Boeing in the dust with 142 aircraft worth $22B.