DW If you don't know exactly what systems have failed to put you in Alternate.....
You need to know what systems have failed, it has to be communicated by the system..
DW........ then you can still fly safely by staying within the envelope (which you should be doing anyway),........
corect, but in the context we are discussing here utter nonsense. The first reason you mention yourself, you should always stay in the envelope. Protections are not there to motivate to reckless flying and testing out the envelope protections. The second reason is neglecting the vital point, how to take care to stay in the envelope.
DW..........and assuming that all protections are gone.
I would always fly like all protections are gone. I had none for twenty years, and i wouldnīt rely on one now. And i hope that the pilots i fly with do the same. But as some of the laws and sublaws influence the FBW system also on the input output level, we have to know those limitations to understand, what the system can do and canīt do, and how the manual inputs are translated to the flightcontrols. Example that comes to mind is "roll direct" (overall Law Alternate, but in roll direct).
The degraded laws canīt be reduced to the fact protections yes or no, those changes are the least important one, because the flight should always be kept within the flight envelope and protections should not be tested. But the degradation might have influence on the handling depending on the systems affected by the degradation, and thus on the asociated flight control inputs.
gums
Convince me that the AF447 PF was considering all those exceptions to the "rule".
DW
He didn't need to be - staying inside the envelope was all that was required.
Itīs not a question to stay inside the envelope, itīs a question how to do that. and therefore the functionality and the limitations of the input system are relevant and have to be present, to do the right thing to stay inside that envelope.
Those "flat" statements" are comparable to an instructor who acts like answering to his student pilot, when asked how to handle flying and arising problems:
Son, just go out and fly. Everything will be ok if you "know to take care (your words from another ridicolous statement)" not to crash. No need to tell you the details how to do that and what to look for, the aircraft is built to take care of that, just donīt crash.
Cobbler, stick to your trade.
DW
Here's a short list of things that came up on this thread and it's predecessors - none of them true, but nevertheless fervently believed by those who posted them
Most points of this list would have stayed what they had been in the beginning, unnoticed sidenotes and excursions. You are the guy who has a great part in leading the discussions to these points again and again, who zeroīs in on those points and distracts the thread OT.
Most participating posters here show their interest in discussing the circumstances of this accident without focusing blame or making comparisons between different manufacturers. You have a valuable part in it concerning your knowledge as a software engineer. But your jumping in with the A v B theme and your permanent war with one or two posters motivated out of the past is hindering in these discussions. I would know nothing about this A v B stuff, as i have none expierience in B and none worth to mention in A and i donīt care, who builds the aircraft i go on leave, as long as it is safe, but thanks to you i know now more negative touched stuff about it than i ever would have liked to know.
End of discussion for me.