Machinbird
But OWAIN, if you can still set the gains for the flight control system, do you need to drop out of Normal Law in the first place?
I don't believe that the accuracy would be sufficient to manage an auto throttle system, but it should be possible to calculate gain settings that would permit Normal Law or perhaps a variant of Alternate 1 Law. Any improvement in stall warning calculation is just icing on the cake.
We seem to have been slightly at cross purposes. My remarks were aimed specifically at the minimal changes necessary to fix the stall warning anomaly whereas I now recognise that you had a more general application in mind.
For sure if you have no IAS information you cannot work an autothrottle system, but I don't think the problem is one of setting gains for the flight control system. The current system reverts to a constant gain setting I believe, which is perfectly adequate to fly the aircraft. The only change (in pitch at least) is that the response time may vary with altitude as it does on conventional aircraft rather than being constant in all flight phases. The problem, as I understand it, would be to find a way to maintain the envelope protection functions. Dozy has made the point several times, and I can but reinforce his comments that one really should differentiate between the "handling laws" and envelope protection functions. Lumping them together under the general label of "laws" tends to obscure important features