Another nice piece of disinformation. Who should I credit it to, OG or you ... ?
Let me first say that I strongly object to it being suggested that I would present disinformation!
Now let me repeat what I have said previously - the AOA was held down by the phugoid damping term in the Alphaprotect law. I said nothing about
waits a fraction of a second to stabilise before determining whether the remaining AoA is to be used for extra pitch or for bank input.
I think that is
. The EFCS doesn't decide whether to add pitch (AOA?) or bank; the pilot does that, the EFCS merely decides whether it is safe to fulfill his commands. The system was designed to facilitate this by adding thrust if the energy management needed such thrust to maintain safety. By switching off alphafloor Asseline transferred that responsibility for safety to himself.
Apart from the fact that I have never seen an
Airbus statement "
advertising"* any specific value of alphamax, they would certainly not have made any claim that this could be safely achieved by simple action on the sidestick with only part of the system working.
Although Airbus test pilots routinely made high AOA demonstrations with alphafloor switched off they invariably compensated for that by selecting a level of thrust commensurate with maintaining speed and altitude.
When test flying to establish Vs1g, which must be done with idle thrust they were (are) careful to do this at a safe altitude so that the aircraft can be allowed to sink.
Edit:
* "advertising" as in writing for publicity or sales purposes intended for a general audience as against writing in a technical publication intended for knowledgeable persons