Quote from Dozy Wannabe:
"I don't think Chris was intentionally misinforming - "
I don't think anyone will ever know for sure, so - more out of respect for Conf_iture than the gentleman concerned - I amended my post this morning to reflect fact, rather than supposition.
Hi vilas,
I like your explanation of why AoA mode used to remain engaged until a sidestick was displaced forward (as in the first two disengagement conditions listed in the FCOMs posted by DonH). The interesting development is that, sometime after the A340 AIRPROX incident of 2001, the introduction of the third disengagement condition seems to have been completed across the fleet.
The third disengagement condition is not unlike what I was proposing a few days ago in reaction to the A340 AIRPROX. (That was prior to HN39 drawing our attention to the BEA Report into the AF A340 Serious Incident of 2011.) I was concerned that a short-term up-gust had triggered AoA mode by phase-advance, and AoA mode had initiated the undesired climb with neutral sidestick which the crew were (admittedly) slow to correct.
Having studied the traces provided by the BEA of the AF A340 incident, where the third disengagement condition operated five times, I am reviewing my opinion. The first disengagement into normal (Nz) mode was, as you know, shortly followed by a significant exceedance of Alpha-MAX. It seems probable that the wing effectively stalled at that point, which probably would not have happened but for the temporary disengagement of AoA mode.