Originally Posted by
rudderrudderrat
With all due respect, experienced pilots miss the absent acceleration clues in full motion simulator.
...
Most of us modify our inputs by what we feel as well as what the flight instruments say. Even autopilot inputs are modified using accelerometers.
I'm well aware, and I'm certainly not going to argue the toss with you on that count, having no full-motion simulator experience (although I have nearly lost my lunch when my AEF instructor demonstrated a barrel roll and half-loop (Immelmann Turn) in a Chipmunk, so I know something of the phenomenon...
)
However, the point I was trying to make was this - based on my understanding, as trained pilots it is ultimately at your discretion as to how much emphasis you place on your physical sensations versus what the instruments are telling you. Based on what I was taught before I succumbed to long hair, rock music and pacifism (in no particular order) and washed out of the Air Cadets as a result (in fact, somewhere in the dustiest recesses of my Mum's loft is a box containing my Cranwell prospectus and completed application form - lest anyone think I was never serious), it is a rare occasion indeed where your instruments are more likely to give a false impression than your inner ear. Even if one of the instruments in the scan is giving you faulty information, there should be enough information provided by the others to keep you right-side-up and give you a sporting chance of getting back to terra firma in one piece.
There have been more than a few examples in the last couple of decades where pilots have mishandled airliners due in whole or in part to failing to trust their instruments, most or all of which were functioning normally (Flash Airlines and Birgenair to name a couple). Don't get me wrong, I understand the importance of feel in the tactile channel, but on the other hand I think that safe airliner operation is more than feasible without it. I also think that the arguments for retaining autotrim in Alternate Law outweigh the arguments against - with the proviso that the behaviour of the systems in Alternate Law are taught properly (which, according to PJ2 in the R&N thread, they are and always have been based on Airbus's own training materials):
bubbers44;
Below is a typical CBT image from the late 90's. Alternate Law is covered very well in any Airbus course I've seen or for which I've had access to the training materials.
@Bearfoil/Lyman/Will Fraser:
I think it was FUNCTIONALLY locked. takata told us so, and I believe him.
That is an out-and-out misrepresentation. What takata posted was this (emphasis mine):
THS control
The elevator orders are progressively transferred to the THS through a low-speed integrator to decrease the drag. This is the AUTOTRIM function. The THS movement is inhibited:
- under 50 ft in manual mode (100 ft in AP mode),
- when the high-speed and Mach protection is active,
- in case of manual action on the hand wheel,
- when the load factor is lower than 0.5 g,
- in case of abnormal condition law.
The THS movement is limited in up direction:
- when the alpha protection is active,
- when the load factor is higher than 1.25g,
- when the bank angle is above 33 deg,
- in case of low speed protection (alternate law).
Sustained nose-down input at the apogee and/or rolling the trim wheel forward manually would therefore have been perfectly successful in trimming *down* at high-g loading.
I'm now more than a little suspicious of your continued attempts to sow misinformation in this thread and the others.