HN39 post 1233
I don't think that is a correct description of how the system functions. A sidestick input commands a change of flight path.
Hazlenuts, I think you mis-understood the intent of my post. It was a hypothetical what would have happened if the aircraft dropped to Direct Law instead of switching to Alt2B? My conclusion was that the aircraft would not have been easier to fly, but that the likelihood of disaster was significantly less.
PF would still have rocked his wings, and he would have pulled his nose up as he did before, but as the aircraft slowed, he would have had to pull much harder to hold the nose attitude, or he would have had to trim.
But trimming nose up means intentionally selecting a lower speed. That would have required a conscious decision on his part. The aircraft would have actually told him it was getting slow by the amount of nose up effort required to hold the nose up.
The aircraft crashed because PF did not understand what was going on, not because it was difficult to fly. Autotrim masked the loss of speed.
Using a lowest common denominator design strategy, dropping to Direct Law instead of Alt 2 B would actually improve the pilots understanding of where the aircraft was in its flight envelope. I'm betting he would not have rolled in more nose up trim if it was under his direct control.