@ Lyman,
Quote by Lyman: On the contrary, the danger is in the subtlety of the SS, and it's other shortcomings, visibility being one, and I'll add lack of shaker warn to that. BEA have demonstrated that in Alternate Law, the Airbus is mostly vanilla, but untested in STALL, so the basis for a stick (shaker) waiver is found to be awarded in error.
Clandestino has posited, in my opinion, that a shaker is not needed, simply because it is not fitted ...
So in the instance of AF447, would a stick shaker be of help at 350K, M 0.8 with the A/P & A/T disengaging shortly followed by a stall warning? Isn't the key here what was recorded on the CVR, "We have no speeds"? If you have no speeds and you have been flying normally, wouldn't that be interpreted as UAS? Wouldn't you then apply the Unreliable Speed Indication/ADR Checklist? So then, you would level the wings and apply 5º pitch and get out the pitch and power tables? Now would a stick shaker shaking help or hurt you accomplishing this as very gentle adjustments of the sidestick are required? Where would the stick shaker get it's information from that wouldn't be erroneous? Would this extra layer of "protection" add to the confusion having not reacted in the correct manner? Wouldn't the designers, engineers and test pilots of the aircraft thoroughly thought through the need for a stick shaker and implications it might present, both positive and negative and concluded the negatives outweighed the positives?
And finally, would the pilots who have or do regularly fly Airbus aircraft, such as
Clandestino, be clamoring for sidestick shakers if it were of true benefit? Just asking....