jtr thanks for the timely reminder. However, assuming that the crew commenced a ‘windshear’ mode go-around, then they or the aircraft system would (should) have allowed the airspeed to reduce in proportion to the demanded climb. This reduction in is independent of an actual windshear being present. The required reduced airspeed (sometimes AOA) is taught in training or programmed by the windshear mode of the flight guidance system.
In the aircraft that I am familiar with, when the crew select go-around and windshear has been detected (reactive warning), the flight guidance system will automatically select the windshear go-around mode (low airspeed), including increased thrust. I assume that a predictive system will work in a similar manner.
An additional concern would be if an onboard predictive Windshear system gave an unwarranted alert, or if the warning was given by a ground system and it was not applicable. Whichever scenario applied the crew should still have flown a ‘windshear’ go-around.
If the aircraft was not in a ‘windshear’ go-around mode, just a normal go-around, then I agree the loss of speed is more than a just a concern. However, in either circumstance it appears that the reduced airspeed was due to the lack of autopilot control, and that the root concern is why the crew failed to realise this.
MrBernoulli you are correct, but ... a reduction in ‘g’ (less than 1, but not necessarily negative) and AOA are complimentary in lowering the stall speed. In order to reduce ‘g’ the lift demanded from the wing has to be reduced, which is achieved by reducing AOA.