JDEE - When PF initialy reduced the VS from 7000 to 700 the aircraft had not actualy stalled. The first stall warnings were false due to the eroneous speed indications. These also led to the AP and ATHR disconects and the reversion to alternate law. Therefore his actions to reduce the climb were partialy sucessfull. If you mean his actions did not unstall the aircraft as I said they were not stalled at this point.
Later on the PF made pitch down movements which resulted in reduced AoA and increased speed - therefore the situation was recoverable.
Cog sim - the computer had nothing to do with maintaining the stall as PF was able to reduce pitch when he chose so to do.
Would anyone care to comment on how many times during their career they have experienced an uncomanded reversion to alt law?
What is the stall speed at FL380, 350, 300, 200, 100 sea level?
Some one mentioned earlier the colgan crash and I have to agree there are similarities in that in both cases the PF would apear to have reacted incorectly to impending and actual stall. - No one plans to stall for real, accidental stalls ocur when we least expect them and are probably most unprepared for them. In order to survive quick recognition of the situation followed by apropriate response.
This in turn derives from the training - if this is inadequate or inapropriate then the wrong responses follow.