With gee and pitch rate components of the other laws, the jet is basically "neutral" for speed stability ( no "trimmed" airspeed as we old farts remember). So slowing up does not lower the nose as we were used to. And the converse for application of power regardless of engine mounting - you won't climb to maintain the "trimmed" speed ( actually AoA).
Yes! That's a point that is often missed and underemphasized in learning to fly the bus. The airplane is essentially point-and-go. If you pull back on the stick for a few seconds and let go, the airplane pitch will stay there. If you're in cruise flight (that's a lot of forward energy), you can easily be going up at 6,000 feet per minute quite quickly. (this happened in another very interesting—yet
non-fatal incident between an A330 & A340 in October 2000 where " the aircraft climbed rapidly (reaching a peak rate of about 6,000 ft/min) due to the increase in lift created by the flight control system's capture of alpha prot. " Now, normally the protections will prevent you from getting into trouble as a result, (with rare exceptions like the above where it was arguably the
cause of the trouble, but if the protections are degraded reduced (to stabilities) or absent (versions of alternate 2: AF447), then it's all up to the pilot to establish a reasonable pitch attitude. The natural aerodynamic stabilities will not do it.
But this is the first I have seen for the jet not having positive static stability. I mean basic aerodynamic stability, unfettered by computers using rate and gee and air data sensors. My trusty Viper was no kidding statically unstable until above 0.9 M. We also did not have the plethera of alternate modes and sub-alternate modes - it was gee and AoA protections only. But like the 'bus, we were neutral WRT speed stability. Sucker would hold the trimmed gee until it reached 27 degrees AoA ( remember, we could trim for a gee).
Need Mssr Palmer here, or someone else to try "direct law" and set the THS, then let go of the stick.
Direct law is much more like a 767. But the stick forces are light - they are always the same with the same displacement from center as there is no artificial feel system. Flying in direct law is a matter of using the trim to avoid having to hold the sidestick out of the neutral detent. It's like some cars that have the power steering set so it has virtually no feel and takes no effort on the wheel. It handles fine, you just use the trim wheel manually so that you can have the stick neutral as you fly. (though still primarily controlling pitch with sidestick)
It's also interesting note that in alternate law the stabilities are actually the airplane's natural stabilities. The pitch is in essentially direct law. The effect is subtle—due to the absence of an artificial feel system requiring tens of pounds of force one might call them "weak"—but at least there is a
tendency to pitch to the trimmed airspeed—which would theoretically be higher than the airspeed that results in trouble—but who can guarantee the crazy scenarios one might conjure up. But, the activation of those stabilities is based on airspeed as a trigger. So, when airspeed is thrown out of the equation as it was in AF447 (due to disagree and a change rate that was deemed invalid), the stabilities aren't allowed to become part of the flight control law and stall prevention and recovery is all up to the pilot again. G-load demand is a crappy flight control law to be in for stall recover. When the airplane starts to fall (accelerate downward G <1.0) the airplane's reaction to maintain a neutral-sidestick command of 1.0g is up elevator, followed by nose-up stabilizer. ooops.