Henra:
Thanks for your post, and to Takata's. The latter provides a good illustration of some of the elements I was referring to...
Glad to read you're in agreement on "inertia".
Two things regarding the disagreement on control surfaces, that may help bringing you in agreement:
1. You’ve quoted selectively from my paragraph, omitting the last sentence (marked in blue):
Originally Posted by airtren
Otherwise, as I understand it, if the segment is "non-level", there is a good chance/probability that "inertia" and "control surfaces" as left after the disconnect, and lack of protections, can bring the "a/c" way out of being "level" - "up", or "down", or "left" or "right". The degree of how off from "level" depends also on the time interval between the "automation disconnect" and the taking of the controls by the pilot, as well as a correct control correction coming from the pilot.
That last sentence is important, as it has put an emphasis on the time window/interval between the AP & A/THR disconnect, and the time the Pilot is taking control and providing an input control/correction through the Stick - which is the time in which there is NO input (gap in input) to the F/CTL. The two are in the Takata's post's drawing, the two Input sources into the F/CTL Computer.
2. Your reference to Normal Law behavior is different from the case I refer to, and may indicate your missing of my reference to “lack of protections” (marked in blue) referenced as in pertinent protections, as a case in which the system is NOT in NORMAL LAW.
Note: Regarding the Takata's post text/excerpt of "...when in normal law, regardless of the pilot's (or AP) input, the computers will prevent excessive maneuvers and exceedance of the safe envelope in pitch and roll axis." I seem to be more conservative on the interpretation of the "prevent... exceedance of the safe envelope....", in regards to the extent of the creation of orders by the F/CTL Computers if no input is present from the AP or Stick..
That being said, during that time window mentioned above, and other than Normal Law, the control surfaces are left in a neutral/static position, and thus (a) they may be neutral, (b)they may reduce, or (c) they MAY AMPLIFY the effect of air flow change due to strong/heavy turbulence during, before, and after that window.
That effect may be NULL (a), may counter (b), or may compound (add to) (c) the “inertia” in getting the “a/c” way off the “level” flight.
Originally Posted by henra
Originally Posted by airtren
Otherwise, as I understand it, if the segment is "non-level", there is a good chance/probability that "inertia" and "control surfaces" as left after the disconnect, and lack of protections, can bring the "a/c" way out of being "level" - "up", or "down", or "left" or "right".
With regards to inertia, I agree.
Regarding Control surfaces I tend to disagree.
As I already stated the AP disconneting will not so much be the factor here.
The AP makes requests to the FCPC's like a human pilot would do.
In normal law the AP will ask for a roll or pitch demand and the FCPC will provide the 'implementation'.
Therefore Control Surface deflection will depend on FCPC and not directly on AP.
If they had still Normal Law after AP disconnect this would have assured wings level.
It is the reversion to Roll Direct Law that will dictate what the Control Surfaces will do.
As in Direct Law the position of the control surfaces is directly proportional to stick position it is reasonable to conclude that in the given scenario the ailerons would have moved to neutral after change to Alt2.