Habsheim

[Chris Scott]

Dozy,
To answer your recent question: yes, the (Habsheim) a/c was in a normal landing configuration, i.e., L/G down and "Flaps 3" (Slats 22 deg, Flaps 20 deg). BTW, the other normal landing config is "Flaps Full" (Slats 27 deg, Flaps 35).

Quote from RetiredF4:
"By the way, a pilot in the loop in a conventional aircraft in such a pitch up situation due to increasing engine thrust would react how (without available protections)? By controlling the pitchup by use of proper stick input, which might be stick forward!
"Who wants to end like the B737 at Kazan?"

Quite so, and - IIRC - there's a precedent on the A310. I imagine most twin-engined airliners with underslung engines have comparable characteristics in the go-around; partly because they are essentially overpowered when both donks are running, and it is normal practice to use TOGA thrust when going-around from a low height.

On the A310, which for this discussion we can regard as being in Direct Law, the amount of down-elevator to counter the pitch-couple effect of TOGA is cosiderable, even from Vref. This is highlighted best if the AP is off, when the PF has to exert an almost unsustainable forward force on the control column, manually trimming the THS forward from the landing setting as fast as possible to relieve the elevator load. (When in use, the AP and auto-trim obviously have the same task.) The down-elevator requirement would be much greater from Valpha-max. (BTW, the A310 also has an Alpha-Floor mode in A/THR, so the latter must have been demonstrated for certification, presumably at an aft CG.)

FWIW, I don't remember ever doing a G/A on an A320 in Direct Law (certainly not in anger, because in 14 years I never lost Normal Law). However, a glance at the relative profiles of the A320 and A310 suggest that the A320 elevators may enjoy a more effective pitch-moment than the A310's. (The A319 might be more comparable to the A310 in that respect, and the A320 more like the A300-600.)