I wish to correct a misconception or two concerning the so-called "deep stall"
As Newt told Ripley, " my parents told me there weren't any REAL monsters.... but there are."
So I pulled stuff from a pre-historic publication and posted on the technical thread concerning AF447. PLZ read this and think about it, especially the quote from a "golden arm" test pilot describing what it felt like.
http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/44963...ml#post6432295
Second, many folks associate a "deep stall" with T-tail designs and airflow over the horizontal stab/elevators. As you can see from the Viper, this is not a requirement. The problem occurs with a combination of c.g. and AoA and low speed. I flew the VooDoo as a yute, and it had the T-tail and it had a problem as someone alluded to here. At a sufficient AoA, downwash over that T-tail caused ever-increasing nose up pitch - we called it 'pitch up". It could happen at all speeds. but we didn't enter a "deep stall", we flipped end over end and rolled and yawed. Quite a ride. Due to conventional static stability and c.g. it was possible to regain control even without using the drag chute. however, SOP was wait until IAS was below drag chute limits and deploy the sucker!! Saved thousands of feet, and you didn't have to be a clone of Chuck Yeager.
Lastly, FBW is a lot more than a simple command of the control surfaces via electrical signals from the flight controls and the hydraulics that are there to move the suckers. True, the Concorde was closer to that, but I'll guarantee that there were some filters and dynamic pressures used to limit deflection and the rate of deflection. Not to the extent of the Viper or the late Airbus designs, though.
I can see a case to be made that the AF jet climbed steeply, ran out of air molecules over the elevator/THS and stalled. With the THS at a full ( within a degree) nose up command, and with a c.g. aft of most jets, it could enter a "deep stall" just as we had in the Viper.