"...Because the Aircraft remains safe even when the pilot pulls on the stick to the stop thanks to the high angle of attack protection, Airbus position is that no additional alerts about low speed/energy situations is needed at high altitude because large altitude loss due to stall cannot occur on Airbus Fly-By-Wire aircraft.
Moreover, no additional stall warning or stick shaker is needed with this kind of protection. Stall warning is only re-introduced on airbus aircraft when the angle of attack protection is lost (loss of normal laws)...."
ASHWG LAA Report_15 March 2010 Final Version_Appendix 1
Fair enough. What of performance after reversion to alternate Law? Stall Warn should compel action. If ignored, or dismissed, there is no other resolution for Airbus pilot. Shaker is unmistakable, irrevocable and emphatic compulsion to act.
So. Why the waiver from FAA? I would understand the waiver if clearly limited to Normal Law, the alpha Prot is its own Stall Warn, and cannot be overridden.
Alternate Law is a "different" airplane, should it not be required to meet minimum standard of other aircraft?
Roll in Direct? Perhaps a clever way to introduce instability in Roll, and a clever way to provide Nose Down, independent of crew? Unstable roll axis is perhaps the only Stall cue they would receive? Did Bonin outfox the airplane, and himself, by learning to manage the new roll? Or was the aircraft supposed to roll until the nose dropped, by design? Stick and rudder by program?
What this crew needed was instability in the descent, not docility. They were focused on stability as always, like all good Airbus drivers?