Originally Posted by
CONF iture
But the logic is biased here as in Normal Law the pilot can keep pulling on the stick and still the THS will stop moving further up as speed reaches alpha prot.
Which is why pilots are trained on the differences between Normal Law and the others.
The system does not permit the pilot to know better
Actually the system is
deferring to the human pilot because it knows that it does not have the information to make that call.
when actually it should simply retract
In your opinion.
as it did by commanding AP A/THR and FD to withdraw.
I know you feel differently, but the fact is that in almost every respect Autotrim is not automation in the same sense as AP and A/THR - it is simply a dumb load-balancing device and does not require the inputs that AP, A/THR and FD do.
Of course it would have stalled, but never to that extent, and with much better chance to get an exit point.
Again, that's your opinion. The fact is that the difference related to a matter of seconds, and that proper corrective action on the sidestick would have caused the autotrim to *assist* in recovery if necessary.
Give a reason why it would be indicated to trim further up approaching the stall or already in it ?
The flight control system does not understand "stall" as a concept - we've been through this.
The advantages of Direct Law were
significant.
Sophistication helped to set the trap.
Again - in your opinion.
Originally Posted by
CONF iture
The THS behavior and influence in this accident must be detailed, not hidden.
The THS behaviour *is* precisely detailed in the report. The "influence in this accident" is not proven and simply conjecture on your part.
On the sidestick concept, it is a very first time the BEA is commenting, but still, the comment seriously lacks of character.
How so?