19 hours ago, KevinAu said:

I don’t know why a sane pilot would. But I bet a confused pilot can.

Oh, this has nothing to do with confusion. Just basic aerobatics 😉

47 minutes ago, FDEdev said:

Oh, this has nothing to do with confusion. Just basic aerobatics 😉

I have no idea what you are talking about, sir. My point to skelsey, that you seemed to disagree with, was that alpha prot is not available after a dual engine failure. If you have evidence otherwise, please share it.

35 minutes ago, KevinAu said:

I have no idea what you are talking about, sir. My point to skelsey, that you seemed to disagree with, was that alpha prot is not available after a dual engine failure. If you have evidence otherwise, please share it.

In the case of US1549, the NTSB said:

Quote

The airplane’s airspeed in the last 150 feet of the descent was low enough to activate the alpha-protection mode of the airplane’s fly-by-wire envelope protection features. The captain progressively pulled aft on the sidestick as the airplane descended below 100 feet, and he pulled the sidestick to its aft stop in the last 50 feet, indicating that he was attempting to raise the airplane nose to flare and soften the touchdown on the water. The A320 alpha-protection mode incorporates features that can attenuate pilot sidestick pitch inputs. Because of these features, the airplane could not reach the maximum AOA attainable in pitch normal law for the airplane weight and configuration; however, the airplane did provide maximum performance for the weight and configuration at that time...

 

...the flight envelope protections allowed the captain to pull full aft on the sidestick without the risk of stalling the airplane.

Without recourse to the manuals I wouldn't begin to hypothesise about what law they eventually found themselves in (I have no doubt you are correct and it certainly wasn't full normal law), and the NTSB may have misstated things, but it would appear that they did still have a fairly high level of protection.

1 hour ago, KevinAu said:

I have no idea what you are talking about, sir. My point to skelsey, that you seemed to disagree with, was that alpha prot is not available after a dual engine failure. If you have evidence otherwise, please share it.

Nevermind. I was just mentioning that you can have a lot of fun (e.g. aerobatics) in a real A320 sim after e.g. a prof check with the remaining time and how easy it is to stall the A320, even in normal law with all protections working as designed.

I wrote my initial reply primarily, because your statement that you loose electrical power with a double engine failure is wrong, nothing else.

Edited August 19, 20196 yr by FDEdev

The protection being referred to in that situation would be nose down input under alternate law with reduced protection.

2 hours ago, FDEdev said:

I wrote my initial reply primarily, because your statement that you loose electrical power with a double engine failure is wrong, nothing else.

Ok, then can you please explain that. Because in the normal course of business, the apu is normally off on takeoff. So in these situations where both engines quit suddenly after takeoff as in the ural and usair cases, you are on batteries until the rat is deployed and the emergency generator is on line. Even then you will only have ac and dc ess and the hot buses. And if you have time to start the apu, you get everything back but you will still be in alternate law because you lost some of your elacs, secs and facs when the ac and dc buses fell off initially when the engine and generators quit. And also you only have blue hydraulics anyways. So please, explain how that is wrong, because I have just a couple of weeks to figure all this airbus mumbojumbo out before I have to transition to the left seat of that thing.

Airbus 2-0...  First Hudson and now this.  Boeing is not competing in surviveability although there hasn't been the same scenario to compare.