I guess a lot of people here have no clear understanding of the Airbus concept and are led by gossip and myths.
Indeed .. and a lot of real pilots (not armchairs) seem's (unfortunately) also led by gossip and myths (question ...who created gossip and myths ?) .. or no clear understanding of the concept (too much complicated ?) of this plane ...
Guess what happen ... ? ALL catastrophes (fatal) concerning Airbus planes are result of pilot errors (the pilots involved were all morons ?)
NEVER because the design or concept
This is a pattern there ......
Alternate law has certain protection features compared to direct law. Why give them up if you can have them? You never know if you need them.
But
(and stay away from any protection as you are supposed also in normal law).
?
It is also easy to fly in direct law, but of course with the additional task of trimming.
So .. why a alternate law ? (Concorde had not this law)
Is what we consider the current pilots too lazy (or incompetent) to use trim ?
Or use of trim manually is considered dangerous by many in a Airbus ?