Originally Posted by
BOAC
b) References to the fact that the stall warning 'cannot' sound in Normal Law. Is this right?
In theory it shouldn't - the Stall Warning is not inhibited in Normal Law, but the idea is that the protections should kick in before it becomes necessary. However, I've heard anecdotal evidence that it has sounded briefly when external factors such as adverse weather have pushed the aircraft outside the intended envelope.
c) References to situations where alpha floor protection in some species of Alt Law might be absent. Is this right?
Alpha
floor is a function of autothrust, as opposed to Alpha
protection which is part of the flight control logic. In Alternate Law the hard protections are lost except for load factor manoeuvering, with a "soft" low-speed stability function taking the place of alpha protection. However with speeds out, that stability function can no longer work, hence the secondary mode.
According to Clandestino, Alternate Law handling is trained to assume a worst-case scenario (i.e. all protections lost).
Originally Posted by
Owain Glyndwr
As I (a non-pilot) understand it, there has been a commonly (A+B) accepted drill for "approach to stall recovery" which involves application of power and sometimes a pull-up to minimise altitude loss? Now both A & B are saying that this approach can lead to confusion and possible accidents...
You're correct. However the caveat applies that the old approach to stall procedure indicated a maximum NU pitch angle of 5 degrees - what the PF pulled in this case was 3 times that. The other issue was that as far as I can tell the first Stall Warning on the CVR was *in response* to the back-stick command due to "G".