" The protections in ALT LAW may be overridden while maintaining structural integrity. (Load Factor)"
So in other words one cannot ' bend ' the airplane no matter what ( unless somehow HAL allows direct control "
IMO that is a logic flaw. I posted earlier about a China 747 in 1985 that had an engine failure, went into a major spiral dive, and was recovered- and still flew - but it was severly bent with estimated 5G loads during pullout. Wings were bent up permanently sever inches at tips, who knows how much during flight. Part of horiz stabilizer was torn away.. plane landed safely, and was repaired and put back into service. Structural limit load test the wings on a 747 go several feet above top of fuselage at 2.5 to 3 G equivalent ..
Alternate law limits would have prevented that- and plane and passengers would have been swimming with the fish . .
see
China Airlines Flight 006 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
and the official report can be found
" here were two serious injuries on board: a fracture and laceration of a foot, and an acute back strain requiring two days of hospitalization. The aircraft was significantly damaged by the aerodynamic forces. The wings were permanently bent upwards by 2 inches (50 mm), the inboard main landing gear lost two actuator doors, and the two inboard main gear struts were left dangling.[1] Most affected was the tail, where large outer parts of both horizontal stabilizers had been ripped off. The entire left outboard elevator had been lost along with its actuator, which had been powered by the hydraulic system that ruptured and drained."
Now about load protection ??
http://www.airdisaster.com/reports/ntsb/AAR86-03.pdf
http://www.airdisaster.com/reports/ntsb/AAR86-03.pdf
BTW early in the 707 commercial introduction a 707 went into a spiral dive cuz autopilot kicked out at night, nobody minding the store. Luckily they recovered, but wings were permanentely bent..
Load protection would have done What ??