Originally Posted by HN39
OK465:
Thank you for your post #1392. I understand most of what you are saying, except when you say "a more relaxed SS input". A valid experiment would compare the two cases at exactly the same entry conditions and exactly the same pilot inputs. On 'theoretical grounds' I remain convinced that the resulting airplane trajectories would be identical up to the point where the elevator reaches the stop.
After re-reading your posts and also the one
here by
OK365 and that other one
here by
IF789, I can confidently think that I now understand your main idea :
What you're talking about here is maintaining the Nz law but on the elevators alone, without the trim participation.
Such behavior would be in total contradiction with the logical Airbus philosophy where as soon as the THS stops moving automatically, whatever the circumstance, flare, alpha prot range, direct law, the pilot needs to apply a constant deflection on the stick in order to obtain and maintain a desired attitude (as long as he do not manually trim).
To maintain the Nz law on the elevators alone would be totally illogical IMO.
It would be also like masking the reality to the operator.
At this point what is needed is Direct law, why anyhting else ?
People around like to think about more automation, or OTOH to not change anything to the present logic, in reaction to AF447, when the most logical path would be to simply switch to less automation as soon as unreliable data are detected by the system.
If the system had that humility to further switch to Direct law when the UAS was detected, AF447 was an all different game with a probable landing in CDG.