Alpha sensors, etc.
I gotta go with 'bird and other pilots.
I realize that an airspeed below 60 knots ( TAS, EAS, IAS, CAS, whatever) is unlikely once airborne. OTOH, the AoA vanes or conical probes or whatever are independent of the pitot-static system.
If the pitot-static sensors go tango uniform, then do we ignore the AoA sensors?
Somehow, I get the feeling that the cosmic engineers never expected the jet to have unreliable dynamic pressure and then get close to a stall. Just ignore the AoA sensors, huh? This is despite the fact that actual EAS/CAS in the AF jet was above 60 knots and the AoA sensors were prolly still providing valuable data to the FCS.
Sounds like a fault tree analysis is in order.
I flew two jets before the Viper with the old-fashioned vane style AoA doofers. Then I flew the Viper that had the conical AoA things with slots in them. The Viper also had a pneumatic, hemispheric probe that provided another AoA indication and sideslip inputs for the FCS. If we lost dynamic pressure we used "standby gains" for "q", but still used the AoA data. Worked for me and thousands of Viper pilots.
If the AoA sensors are getting weird due to actual aircraft flight conditions, then no big deal. It means that the jet is doing something weird!! So don't ignore the sensor values.
And then there's all the "alpha prot" and other "laws"/"sub-laws" and on and on and on. Sheesh. Too many autopilot functions are embedded in the design. Maybe have reversion "laws" that are clearly defined and get rid of all those functions that should be allocated to Otto when it is engaged. And make no mistake, I am not advocating a reversion to "direct" law. There needs to be a basic "law" that uses basic flight dynamic data to provide the pilot a "basic" airplane to fly. If you lose dynamic pressure, then use AoA. If both go tango uniform, then pitch and power are the drill.