Originally Posted by Lyman
It depends on what one would expect from the pilot population as a whole, whether the risk to the aircraft with poorly trained airmen would warrant a scheme that went to Direct Law when the Airspeeds were lost.
Whether you like it or not, the aircraft reverted to ALT2b.
Consider the pilot knows what's best and demands NU on SS, hence the Elevators follow and as the airspeed is bled off and the 'g' commanded is not being met, the THS commences its journey. It knows no better, only that the pilot knows best.
The point of all this is that if the aircraft during this UAS event had actually gone into Direct Law, and the THS was limited at 3° NU, the aircraft when handled the way it was would still have stalled. Owain Glyndwr has pointed out many times that the Elevators [alone] were quite capable of providing whatever NU/ND was requested.
Since when has an airframer been responsible for the actions of poorly trained airmen/women? I'm not talking about the 'deep pockets' litigation that seeks to make them responsible, but rather the expectation that the aircraft will be flown by properly trained and competent personnel.
You can argue until the 'cows come home' [in your grassy valley], but in the case of AF447 the expected procedures were not followed, CRM was lousy, and if there was any acknowledgement of the situation they were in, it must have been done with 'sign language'.
AB will most likely make changes to the way problems with faulty air-data is revealed to the crew, but this is to be expected in line with progressive improvements to the software. Now this could also be construed as further 'dumbing down' of the competency levels required to fly their aircraft. If its in the interest of 'safety', then I believe most will manage to live with it.
Now where is the concierge?
