Originally Posted by
safetypee
You appear blinded by hindsight.
The first symptoms and alerts immediately after takeoff were of low speed, approach to stall, erroneous air-data. The crew managed this situation correctly, concluding UAS.
Note that the alerts and annunciations for UAS are similar, identical to the emergency AD re MCAS except there was no trim activity.
Erroneous air data was definitely present in spades but what is your proof of "low speed and approach to stall" were present? Every take-off consists of "low speed"; the question is is whether the engines are continuing to put out the advertised power (94% N1 in the case of ET) and the aircraft is accelerating and/or climbing, i.e. gaining energy. They were and it was.
There was no indication whatsoever of an approach to a stall either as the indicated airspeeds were all increasing and the attitude of the aircraft was normal. We cannot tell from the FDR whether the controls were "mushy" or not. But for argument's sake, lets say it was an impending stall - what is the memory drill for that? Lower the nose to reduce alpha then slowly add power being careful not to let the nose pitch-up too much and re-enter the stall. This drill was not done so take your pick, normal take-off (with no changes in pitch/power) with bells and whistles or an impending stall without doing the stall recovery?