If the manufacturer and certification authority feel that these protections are necessary for safe operation then why on earth would you switch them off ????
Perhaps some believe, as some CASA FOIs seem to believe, the CARs/CAOs override the certification provisions spelled out quite (at least to me) clearly in the AIM ---- but I guess I know a bit about the problems of deep stalls and certification.
Maybe some FOIs believe they can issue themselves a Reg.308 exemption from the Rules of Aerodynamics and the Law of Gravity.
In fact, if I am guessing identities correctly, Kharon was a Training Captain who refused to accede to the demands of one or more CASA FOIs, who were demanding deactivating the SA 227 SAS system, by pulling the Cb, and pulling the aircraft into a full stall.
And said Kharon obtained a letter from the TC holder absolutely prohibiting what (some) CASA FOIs were demanding.
Maybe this is OpsseverlyabNormal's
"disgraceful behavior", not meekly going along with (some) FOI's demands.
A smart and highly experienced pilot refusing to accept the FOI's interpretation of CAO 40.whatever on stalls during training --- and to hell with the AIM ---- and everybody lived, in contrast to the Norwegian crash ---- which can hardly be called an accident.
Shades of D.P.Davies [UK ARB Chief Test Pilots, author of (Mis)Handling the Big Jets] and the Trident losses and fatalities, demanding a Tiger Moth stall in a modern piece of aerodynamics.
There are no new aircraft "accidents", we just keep repeating the same old same old.
Just like FOI's demands to "fail" ( by mixture or turning the fuel off ---- none of this wuzzie zero thrust) in aircraft not certified to survive an engine failure on T/O ----- because their chosen "black letter law" interpretation of the CAOs.
I guess we will just keep killing candidates from time to time.
Tootle pip!!