@ airtren (re: #223)
Yes, you understood perfectly what I suggested
"implicit relying"? I wouldn't have phrased it like that, but anyway: It's a fact that the proposed solution will be of no use in a "Perpignan-like" case (reversion to direct law), nor if we take the hypothesis of "just" a reversion to alternate
after the THS is already max NU.
But Perpignan was a specific case, with AoA measurement errors: one can't elaborate on that, as (reliable) AoA is required for stall warning.
As for you last §, I'm sorry I don't get your point? What do you mean?
"The limiting, which you look at, if I understand correctly, as a temporary excursion of THS control in DirectLaw could be made Stall Warning dependent, instead of a fixed time interval? Pre-defined time intervals, don't always (actually I should say they rarely) respond well to needs in very dynamic situations."
---------
@ Lyman (re: #224)
I understood "unprotected" as "not a single protection". And, as you seemed astonished that rudder was limited (NB: that's for structural limits reasons) but not the pitch, I replyied with the fact that the pitch is also limited (in g, not regarding stall/AoA, on that we agree),
due to structural limits reasons.
Now, regarding the stall/AoA protection: If the aircraft could have delivered it, it would have. ALTERNATE LAW (
PROT LOST) says it well, doesn't it?