Originally Posted by VGCM66
The Automation was built to ASSIST mankind not to second guess him.
Let us not confuse automation, basic irreversible hydraulic controls, and the benefits of good aerodynamic design.
What told the THS to go up was not the high level of automation that the 'Bus can deliver, but a flawed version of basic aerodynamic common sense that used to be designed into the basic airframe, but now resides in a black box.
In days of yore when flying 'big iron', you would have to trim up next to the stall either manually or with the trim button, and then give a firm heave on the controls for a prolonged period of time to get well into a stall (Think something like the DC-6)
Then along came the jets with their higher control forces and hydraulic boosted, then completely irreversible controls followed causing our control forces to be generated artificially.
Then we had the T-tailed aircraft with their pitch up in the stall that need protective devices to certify the airframe and we became used to flying aircraft with bad aerodynamic characteristics as long as we were protected from the consequences.
Now we have fly by wire aircraft with their C* (attitude stable) and C*U (speed stable) control laws that have permitted straight forward implementation of flight management systems, but what have we lost? Could it be that the smarts that used to be built into the basic airframe design that limited control authority to that which was necessary for the worst condition, (full flaps and forward cg in the case of nose up authority) didn't make the migration into a little black box because it was too hard to do so? That is what I think happened in the A330 Alt 2 law THS limits.
Glad Rag, look over in the Tech AF447 thread for the sidestick diagram.