I think problematic is not the time of travel of the THS trim, it would move quite fast (when it is commanded by the computers to move) however that depends on the present loadfactor and speed and the gains, and I think there are more factors going into the flight computers which finally position the elevators and move the trim.
More problematic seems to be that pilots over all brands avoid considerable loadfactor reductions to below 1 g by all means, which is good for load comfort during normal ops. Minimal loadfactor reduction below 1 g is only present during day to day ops when initiating a descent or doing a level off after a climb. I trained military pilots in air combat maneuvering, and even this breed is very reluctant to use agressive nose down stick inputs and the more when this input should be maintained for more than a second in the range of 0 to -1g. It has to be trained into them that they gain confidence in the outcome of such inputs. Sure it comes handy to be strapped into the seat and having no meals fly around.
Therefore in a stalled situation it is a total untrained and uncomforting maneuver to put the SS or the control column full forward until the aircraft reacts to the input in the desired way. Looking at the FDR' s from some stall accidents will show my point. It is the thinking " a neutral or slightly nose down input will do the trick" and "negative g's will kill" which is the elephant in the room in failed stall recoveries.
I think especially Airbus crews could do that maneuver without much thinking, as the loadfactor protection is operational in normal and alternate law and should protect the aircraft from too much negative g's. Let the system work for the benefit of a fast and quick recovery instead of taking the chance that it works against this intent. And if the full forward stick does not lead to the desired reaction, feed in manual trim.
Last edited by RetiredF4; 4th Feb 2015 at 13:31.