Faire dincome
Leaving aside the fact that the computer would also have had the AoA info to hand, plus why on earth would the computer have only those inputs. There are vastly more parameters available nowadays.
Even a mobile phone has accelerometers. pitot tubes are not the only way of measuring airspeed etc etc.
It is beside the point I believe anyway.
Let's assume for a moment that the computer had got into the position the humans did. Let's assume that we limited the proposed new airliner to old school sensors.
I believe I am correct in saying that after the initial pitot problem, for the rest of the flight the instruments actually worked correctly?
So all the info was available to the pilots, they just failed to interpret it and act accordingly. All a computer had to do was lower the nose.
Your misunderstanding of pitch and power worries me if you are in fact a pilot.
Pitch and power is not a stall recovery technique.
It is a flying with unreliable instrument technique.
It does not mean pitch the aircraft and add power as you seem to suggest.
It means that there are pitch and power settings that will give known level flight speeds.
Yes, Airbus and the rest of the sane world recommends lowering the nose to recover from a stall in an airliner. This is not beyond the wit of man to program into a computer.
I never said pitch and power was a stall recovery technique. Merely that a computer would have to choose between three simultaneous warnings (Stall, Overspeed & Unreliable Airspeed - AF447) thus ignoring 2 warnings and choose one procedure.
That fact you didn't understand this blows your argument to pieces.
As for lowering the nose, that it not the issue. The issue is delaying the increase of thrust, which causes a pitch up moment thus compounding the stall. But then you didn't seem to understand that either.
Time to stop spoofing.
And I love this 'Let's assume for a moment that the computer had got into the position the humans did.' What do you think happened before the autopilot disconnected?