And then the autotrim cutting out with THS at max ANU.Do you think pilots have time in a bad situation to look at the ECAM and start deciphering what effect the changing laws have on what theyre doing?If they can remember.ALT LAW..right, I have no stall warning protection.ABNORMAL LAW..right, trim is manual.THEY FLY THE PLANE FIRST AND FOREMOST.And the stall warning inhibit?Going off when the aircraft was in a deep stall?This is acceptable design is it?All this complex and frankly suspect interface design didnt have any effect whatsoever on the outcome??
Lets not drift off the truth.
Automatic trim was working in Alternate Law, only in direct law autotrim is not available. Autotrim was not cutting out, the situation with loadfactor demand by SS and decreasing speed caused the NU trim to travel full up and also kept it there. The crew did not understand that and it looks that after some hundred of pages it´s still not understood.
Safety Concerns
It is quite incredible how far off track you guys have become.
That is not true, pilots want tactile feedback and better machine- human interface. That is a legit demand of the people who have to fly those aircraft under (unfortunately only) abnormal conditions. .
As i stated before, adopt to that demand and design something new and better instead denying the need for improvement. Its the task of the manufacturers´with the designers and engineers to make apropriate recomendations for those necessary improvements. The pilot comunity will bring the old reference (stick and all other old but functioning input tools) as an way to describe the need for change in layman terms, not as a demand that it has to be in the exact old way.
I told you that before, and i thought you got it and would be able to communicate in the future on that basis. Instead you fall back in the old A vs. B and old vs new saga.
That does not take care on the aim to improve safety.