In alternate law, within the flight envelope aircraft behaviour in pitch is exactly same as in normal law, the complications are outside the envelope. In roll the max application of side stick the rate of roll is 30°/sec which is double of normal law. The pilots had no experience of high altitude handling in roll in alternate law and yet they did not lose control in roll. AF and QZ were the results of irrational, bizarre, extreme and sustained elevator application. This could have been out of total unawareness of the fact that at altitude full elevator application is totally unwarranted and extremely dangerous. This knowledge can be instilled even without or a little hands on training. In my opinion lack of raw data skill is also not the reason but lack of even theoretical knowledge of cruise attitude could be. Even the ATHR fails at the last N1 and holds the status quo. Another reason may be it was a response of an individual frightened out of his wits by the entree into the unknown so it is not possible to seek any logic in their actions. No drastic changes in design are likely to be come due these two accidents. Some training to give high level handling is already initiated by airbus.