jtr one of the primary characteristics of a professional pilot is not to be alarmed; - concerned, yes.
With reference to your speeds, a normal approach is flown at approx Vref +10, this is roughly 140% of the stall speed (Vref=1.3Vs). During a Windshear recovery most flight procedures require, and some auto-recovery systems aim for, but respect stick-shake speed (1.1Vs, 110% of stall speed). Thus for a stall speed in the region of 100 kts, a speed reduction of 25-30 kts in a 747 during Windshear conditions should not be alarming, it should be expected. When flying a Windshear procedure the crew should have enhanced awareness and vigilance due to the reduced safety margins. If altitude was not a primary concern, then a nose over maneuver is acceptable, increased speed may enable quicker penetration of the windshear conditions.
However, in this incident the nose over maneuver appears to be the result of crew action to mitigate the low speed and a previous error – the autopilot was not engaged when they though it was. This is ‘alarming’. Why did such an error occur and why was it not detected earlier in high vigilance situation and with a large, and presumably well trained crew; but of course these are the usual issues of human factors that may never be established.
An example of a very professional crew is here:
Windshear an accident. The normal approach speed for a BAe146 is Vref+5 and the stall speed for this approach was approx 90 kts. Thus as a %, the loss of 15-20 kts is similar to those figures stated above.
Five Livers your point: “this post is trying to establish how a 4 man crew can initiate an auto-pilot wind-shear go around and not realise that, at some stage, the auto pilot has disengaged”, exactly!
My point - “why the crew were not aware of the state of the autopilot”.
The other ‘nonsense’ is basic aerodynamics that appeared to have been overlooked in the development of this thread.
We are bunting in formation!