[quote]GY, maybe this answers some questions?
Quote:
At 2 h 10 min 16, the PNF said "so, we’ve lost the speeds" then "alternate law […]". Note 1: The angle of attack is the angle between the airflow and longitudinal axis of the airplane. This information is not presented to pilots.
Note 2 : In alternate or direct law, the angle-of-attack protections are no longer available but a stall warning is triggered when the greatest of the valid angle-of-attack values exceeds a certain threshold.
The airplane’s pitch attitude increased progressively beyond 10 degrees and the plane started to climb. The PF made nose-down control inputs and alternately left and right roll inputs. The vertical speed, which had reached 7,000 ft/min, dropped to 700 ft/min and the roll varied between 12 degrees right and 10 degrees left. The speed displayed on the left side increased sharply to 215 kt (Mach 0.68). The airplane was then at an altitude of about 37,500 ft and the recorded angle of attack was around 4 degrees
This is the important part: "The PF made nose-down control inputs and alternately left and right roll inputs."
The PF did indeed stick the nose down. It didn't work.
This is what caused the climb:
From 2 h 10 min 05, the autopilot then auto-thrust disengaged and the PF said "I have the controls". The airplane began to roll to the right and the PF made a left nose-up input.
Irrespective of the stall warning that followed the aircraft was ALREADY in the climb that appears to have sealed it's fate. Remember STALL is a function of AoA (are you sure you understand this?).
The pitch-down stick down movements were effective, and may have saved the aircraft if continued however for some reason they were not and airspeed at this time was (presumably) bleeding off due to AoA.
Anyway it's a shame, because I'm loosing respect for some posters here since some fairly basic data points are being glossed over to make some other story match the end result.