Originally Posted by HazelNuts39
I am unclear which 'last sentence' you are referring to. I quoted from the section on "High Angle of Attack Protection", which ends with "Pour terminer, ... givrage des sondes PITOTS... entraine ... F/CTL ADR DISAGREE qui engendre ... ALTERNATE LAW 2 ... avec ... perte de ... LOW SPEED STABILITY."
We'll finish by falling in agreement.
YES, I'm refering to this specific sentence. What it means is that everything above doesn't apply to ACA case : pitots fault => ADR Disagree => Low Speed Stability lost.
All the paragraphe above is quoting the FCOM's explanation of High AOA PROT in NORMAL, then its replacement by LOW SPEED STAB in ALTERNATE (hence Vsw displayed) and conclude that they had none of these protections because being in ALT2 with ADRs rejected.
Do we agree?
Originally Posted by HN39
Doesn't that 'prove' that this section deals with the consequences of ADR DISAGREE caused by PITOT icing?
Yes it does... by detailing that those High AOA/Low Speed Prot above explained... were lost due to this current PITOT fault!!!
French is not your primary language, is it?