Quite different as Vs1g is the stall speed at 1g.
If Airbus wanted no safety margin they would have set alpha max to alpha stall at 1g and modified their graph accordingly.

http://i45.servimg.com/u/f45/11/75/17/84/hud_0210.png

So how would you demonstrate it in normal law in a certification flight test?

P.S.

The diagram you posted is a schematic illustration that alpha-max is just shy of alpha-CLmax. Alpha-CLmax would define Vs1g for a conventional airplane, but not for a FBW airplane with a flight control system that is designed to prevent achieving and exceeding alpha-CLmax. The difference between alphamax and alpha-CLmax (the safety margin) is the performance penalty that must be paid for having a 'hard' stall protection, and Airbus has never made a secret of that fact.

Conventional aircraft having a stickpusher pay a similar price in performance if the pusher is set to fire before alpha-CLmax.

Therefore Valphamax is not Vs1g.

Actually the FCS is designed to achieve alpha max without exceeding it.
Nevertheless temporary overshoot could happen due to turbulence but without significant effect.
Also Gordon Corps demonstrated how temporary overshoots seem to actually take place and so without negative effect.

The diagram I posted is from the Airbus documentation and is applicable to their FBW airplanes.

This is a question Airbus and/or the airworthiness authorities could answer.

...like AF447 ?
Didn't we agree we must no more say the mantra "Airbus cannot stall" ?

Indeed ...

That's based on your assumption that he was in CONF FULL, which is not explicitly confirmed in the video or elsewhere.

But it makes no promises about the rate at which it is achieved.

@roulis : That's not what's being said - the aircraft is protected from stall provided that the required features are operational. Without that, it definitely can stall - no-one on this thread has argued otherwise.

@ Doze

The AF447 was not in the "primary" control laws. And seems that the crew at Habsheim did something to avoid the "primary" laws for their slow, high AoA pass.

It appears that the Habsheim problem was not a flight control computer problem, and the jet did everything it was supposed to do. The AF447 accident showed that the jet can get into a stall if you "do it right". And we learned that in the Viper, after being assured you could not stall the jet. NOT! With a high pitch attitude you could run outta smash and overshoot the progrmmed "protections". Unlike the 'bus, we actually got into a "deep stall".

My feeling is we should let this thread go. It seems obvious that the crew screwed up and crashed a perfectly good jet into the trees.

Has been already addressed here.
You have been unable to counter my argumentation.

Actually it is fast enough that the FTCM states :
"This immediately provides maximum lift"

Yes - your inference and assumption that because he specifies 15 degrees, therefore it must be CONF FULL. What I said was that the actual config is not explicitly confirmed in the video or elsewhere - you may be right, but there's no definitive way to tell.

Which FCTM, which page? Can you provide more context? HAP mode is described in the FCTM I posted at the beginning of the thread as providing maximum aerodynamic lift, but the word "immediately" is not used.

Your lack of argumentation proves my point.
Thank you

FCTM A320 OP-020. P 12/16

Er, no it doesn't. It just means that I don't have any way to confirm whether your supposition is in fact correct, and frankly, neither do you.

Given that this thread started largely as a result of your requests, I have to say that regardless of what you think of me or my input, there are a significant number of qualified and knowledgeable people who have taken the time to sift through the data and attempt to provide answers to your technical questions - and I'm frankly staggered at your dismissive attitude towards them if the results don't fit your preconceived notions of what happened.

Got it - and you're playing fast-and-loose with context again.

You're quoting from the "Operational Recommendations" section, which includes the warning:

Not only does the nature of the Habsheim flight fall outside the parameters of normal ops, thus rendering this particular section (which goes on to assume an airspeed of Vapp) somewhat irrelevant - but Asseline's handling of the aircraft after crossing the threshold completely contravenes that warning.

As HN39 has pointed out, in such circumstances "maximum lift" may not initially be a great deal.

If CONF 3 was the setting for the video demo, why alpha max was at 15 when it was at 17.5 for Habsheim ... ?
What about simply answering the question Dozy ...

Hi CONF,

Look - all I am saying is that in the video, the configuration is not explicitly specified. Nothing more, nothing less.

"plus kéké que moi, tu meurs. autant, c'est plutot les passagers"