Originally Posted by
infrequentflyer789
Possibly (guessing a bit) because in Alt Law you're there because things are broken, and therefore airdata (for one) may not be assumed to be as reliable.
Yes, but perhaps it should be a good idea to have a stall warning, even if the IAS is NCD / < 60kt.
If you have a NCD / invalid AoA... well... I don't know. But that's not the point.
Originally Posted by
infrequentflyer789
There is a difference between giving pilots a warning (which may be ignored...) and taking affirmative action to limit or override the pilot. The latter should requrie a higher degree of confidence in the data you are acting on - and that may not be available in Alt-Law.
I totally agree with you, here.
But I was not proposing
to limit or override the pilot, but
to limit nose up autotrim.
I cannot imagine a situation where it would be dangerous
not to autotrim nose up, when stall warning is ON:
- if the stall warning is correct (i.e. most of the cases), one would not trim up, but lower the nose
- if the stall warning is incorrect (e.g. wrong AoA sensed...) => false positive:
---> would it be a problem/dangerous to inhibit autotrim NU? (note: manual trim always possible)
---> is this scenario likely versus the above one?