Quoting Lyman:-
"The a/c lost a/p, changed FlghtLaw, and required handling.
"The LAW eliminates PITCH protection, and the a/c is considered lively, certainly more active than NORMAL.
"No judgment, but a starting point, and one suspiciously missing some easy to include safety features, and training changes.
"Judgment: There is confusion, among the people who fly her......"
Terrific point, in my view, Lyman.
Does anyone know whether Airbus simulators are configured to 'simulate' the effects of 'law changes'? I'd be very surprised to hear that they are - but (given that the pilots cannot overrule the 'laws') introducing such a training facility would seem to be a very logical step?
After all - as we've all sensed from this accident - when the pilots had less than four minutes to save the aeroplane, the passengers, AND themselves, surely the last thing they should have had to do was to try to recall the small print of the various 'laws'?
Hope it's done, anyway. I've encountered a certain amount of flak by suggesting areas, following this crash, in which safety might be augmented by constructive changes in current SOPs. That's second nature to me; in my own career (like those of most other people) a policy of 'continuous improvement'
became second nature.
However good you may reckon anything you and your colleagues have devised to be, it's never going to be perfect. But - if the will is there - you can always find ways to move CLOSER to perfection.
Sincerely hope that Airbus (and the other manufacturers) rapidly learn, and respond to, the lessons of this accident.