> That's BS. By that logic no Airbus or any fly-by-wire plane could ever be certified - they actually require the computer augmentations to fly.
I would imagine that, to be certified, the Airbus planes had to demonstrate that:
a) The computer augmentation was unlikely to fail,
b) when failed, the plane was still flyable enough, and
c) the pilots were trained to fly the plane when the augmentation failed. (I believe this is called “direct law”, and I would be utterly shocked if pilots are not trained to fly the plane in direct law mode.)
They are so trained, and the airplane is still considered airworthy in that mode, including in particular as it related to this conversation, the FAR 25 positive static stability and stall behavior requirements.
I would imagine that, to be certified, the Airbus planes had to demonstrate that:
a) The computer augmentation was unlikely to fail,
b) when failed, the plane was still flyable enough, and
c) the pilots were trained to fly the plane when the augmentation failed. (I believe this is called “direct law”, and I would be utterly shocked if pilots are not trained to fly the plane in direct law mode.)