Originally Posted by HN39
What were the PF's targets, and why would they have been different in direct law? Would direct law have prevented these targets to be achieved? Would there have been less "mayonnaise stirring"? Would direct law have prevented full sidestick deflection?
What direct law does ?
It’s
here but I can try to tell more :
As soon as the real speed bleeds, the nose wants to lower, it is a natural protection net.
If nevertheless the pilot wants to pull in order to achieve his targets, the aerodynamic let him know what kind of effort it takes on the sidestick. If mayonnaise there is, every down command will materialize in down elevator deflection.
To stall an aircraft in direct law just takes more effort than in a 1G command and the BEA does not disagree on that.
But let’s pretend the guy goes for full deflection before and during the stall ... and the PNF does not question anything of it …
THS is still at 3 deg and the stall cannot be that developed so the indicated airspeed won’t go below the threshold to silence the stall warning that will still warn when the captain is back. Of course if that captain had the chance to naturally contemplate what kind of input is made by the PF on the flight control commands … that could enormously help him to positively evaluate what’s going on here.
What many here like to call 'graceful degradation' had nothing of graceful during that night.
That law that trim and that sidestick concept worked against that crew that night.