stalls and "deep" stalls, yet agin
Yep, Ventus, we've all heard about the "deep stall", and went thru the litany a thousand posts ago.
I even posted a graphic of the pitch moments of the Viper to show the problem, and no T-tail or downwash on the HS or....
We have looked at some unofficial charts of the Airbus and it does not appear to to have the classic deep stall combinations of downwash or lack of nose down pitch moments due to c.g. as with the Viper In other words, it appears that if the crew had applied nose down stick and maybe nose down trim that the jet would have "flown out" of the stall.
This is not unusual for many military fighters built since the late 60's. The hornet can duplicate the AF447 profile quite easily. To recover? let go of the back pressure and push the stick forward, just like a Cessna 150. Duhhhh?
Problem is recognition of the stall and the approach to stall on a well-designed, modern jet. Buffet can be confused with mach problems. No horrendous yaw excursions or abrupt pitch changes. The sucker will settle into a decent stall and not spin due to great yaw control laws and such. May have some roll tendencies, but not like +/- 20 or 30 degrees back and forth.
Apparently, the crew couldn't hear or disregarded the aural stall warning sounds. So I would think a simple stick "vibrator" could get the pilot's attention to look at the "new, improved" AoA indicator that should be installed. No timy bar graph, but something as big as speed and such. Red at top, yellow in middle and green at bottom. Pull and get into red, push and get into green. Real simple, and the Navy pilots have used the equivalent for 50 years when landing on the rolling deck of a carrier.