Like the Airbus that went in off Brazil in a storm, the AirAsia Airbus too went in during a storm. The latest information released indicated the co-pilot was flying at the time of the crash. But there is some information that the Airbus stalled. The plane of course is a fly by wire with the pilot suggesting to the computer what he wants, and then the computer flys the aircraft.

My question is can an Airbus be recovered from a stall? Does the fly by wire flight computer allow pilot input to recover. In a couple of other Airbus crashes where the whole vertical stab broke off the plane, Im sure the software in the computer was reprogramed to limit pilot input and rudder movement. But the question is will the computer allow a pilot to do standard stall recovery procedures like opposite rudder and pitch down till rotations stops?

During testing has an Airbus been stalled? Will the computer co-operate? Does anyone know for sure?

Firstly this is military aviation so you have posted in the wrong place.

Secondly going on the nature of the question am I right in thinking that you are in the “Fly by wire” takes away the pilots ability to save the day line of thinking?

First of all I suggest you go and read the book “Fly by Wire: The Geese, the Glide, the Miracle on the Hudson” by William Langewiesche, it is a short read but it goes into the philosophy behind the design of the fly by wire system in Airbus types.

http://www.amazon.com/Fly-Wire-Geese-Miracle-Hudson/dp/031265538X

Your question about their ability to recover from a stall is also rather nonsensical considering how Airbus aircraft are designed from the A320 on, they are designed with flight envelope protection that prevents stall. In an A320 you get 30 degrees pitch and 45 degrees roll, the flight computer won’t let you exceed that. For example if you retard the throttles and pull the stick hard back the engines will automatically go to max and the aircraft will go into a climb if there is altitude to spare or start to put the nose down. This video of Bruce Dickinson nicely shows that:

Going back to the book I mentioned it goes into some depth about the Airbus test pilot Bernard Ziegler who helped develop the airbus safe flight envelope concept. He has some rather sharp views about airline pilots and what they can do, to be blunt he sees them as bus drivers and system managers and if you give them the full flight envelope they are more likely to crash the aircraft in a stall situation than save the day.

This isn’t to say that Airbus are totally free from risk, the flight data sensors can be fooled and pilots can do stupid things.

Bernard Ziegler is in this video, very interesting career this guy had:

Now been confirmed that 2 Greeks & 10 French have died, many aircraft have been destroyed.

The French Air Force have lost 2x Rafale’s, 2x Mirage 2000Ns & 2x Alpha Jets

The Hellenic Air Force have lost a single F-16

The Italian Air Force have lost 1/2 AMXs

My word that is horrendous!

My sympathies as do all of ours here go out to the families!

i was thinking the story probably more BS than truth but then again could it be something similar to CHAMP ?
http://www.boeing.com/Features/2012/10/bds_champ_10_22_12.html
http://www.gizmag.com/boeing-champ-missile-test/24658/
http://www.nature.com/news/microwave-weapons-wasted-energy-1.11396

Oh no not this again!

Somebody put this up months ago! IT IS TOTAL BS!

If you trace back to where it originated it was posted on a Russian forum by some rather over enthusiastic/nationalistic Russian bloggers! Unfortunately it got picked up by a news aggregator website and very quickly went around the world becoming more lurid with each retelling! One news outlet got the opinion of somebody from an obscure Russian think tank who then threw in all sorts of wild speculation making the story even more lurid!

If you type USS Donald Cook into google now you will get hundreds of conspiracy laden articles all unsourced all talking of unnamed sources within the Russian MOD or the Pentagon.

It is a joke, the ship made a routine port visit and was patrolling the Black Sea to offer reassurance to allies at the time. Even if the Russians did buzz the ship they are hardly going to know the state of her combat systems so the stories of jammed AEGIS that came ENTIRELY out of the Russian blogosphere should only be dismissed as fantasy. The 27 crew members is clearly just a nationalistic jab at the US by inferring cowardice in the face of Russian intimidation.

There is no more to say about this apart from ignore it!

As Jonesy points out a container base NSM solution would be very interesting, the major issue would be providing targeting data.

I suppose you could use Typhoon for that but then you might as well integrate NSM on the jet and not bother with the container. Adding NSM to Typhoon would give a global rather than a Falklands unique solution. Not that it would happen aside from the cost it would interfere with Spear 3. Also putting any offensive antiship missiles on the Falklands would rather undermine the whole defensive posture we are trying to forward on the Islands.

You have things backwards in respect of the ASRAAM and AIM-9X seeker. The FPA seeker was developed by Hughes for the ASRAAM. Hughes won the program to develop the AIM-9X, they used the seeker they developed for the ASRAAM in their missile design. It is interesting to note that both Raytheon and Hughes submitted two different designs each for the competition reusing the motor and warhead from the older models already in service.

Raytheon then acquired the Hughes missile division bringing the winning Hughes design into their product line.

I don’t agree with your position that current Chinese carrier progress is at a snails pace! Actually I think quite the reverse, they are going at a startling pace especially considering they only have ONE CARRIER how many times do I have to repeat myself on that?!

So why would I speculate on your question? I don’t agree with the proposition or position you are taking now.

I repeat they have managed to got to at sea flight trials in less than a year and are now introducing what looks like the initial serial production examples of the J-15. In three years to be at that place with only one carrier and no historical background in carrier operations is amazing.

That you are judging that Chinese deck operations must be too rigid based upon some pictures of some serious looking deck crew from a known state sponsored news channel is absurd! That you seem to think that China isn’t matching America in only three years then drawing the conclusion that means there a serious crisis within their carrier program is absurd!

¿Iran? Are you guys being serious? Iran is a political and military enemy of Argentina. Every year in the UN the argentine goverment calls for iran to deliver it’s high ranking politicians acussed of planing and excecuting the horrendous terrorist attacks agains the jewish mutual organization (AMIA) and embassy, that produced in combination over 600 cassualties and 200+ killed argentine citizens and visitors.

Iran is as realistic as a military partner for Argentina as the Klingon empire.

The FAA has rejected many supperior aircraft to a modernized F-5, or dead end Mirages F-1. They want something better and it appears it will be the, still to be developed in full, Brasilian Gripen. The critical stop gap still seems to be Kfirs from the israelies.

On a personal level, I dissaprove the Gripen as the main fighter for the future. I think it comes short in many mission profiles. Still, it could be good. We will see.

Gripen is dead in the water it relies on British components and IP. Over 30% of what is in a Gripen comes from Britain.

Sainful abdid there is a general news thread and an F35 dedicated one, can you post this there rather then start a new thread.