If the climb wasn't intentional but went unnoticed, seems unlikely that additional information on AoA would have been recognised. In the stall, if it wasn't recognised as a stal,l then what chance an AoA readout would have been noticed/acted upon. If it was recognised as a stall the -40 degree or so readout would have been irrelevant.
Mr Optimistic, I respectfully disagree. Once you've used, or gotten used to, AoA as a gage, or been trained how to use it, it becomes another instrument you can go to for information ... like your engine instruments. Since the information it holds, stall or not stall, is somewhat important to flying ... "AoA high, lower the nose" isn't too hard of an association for a pilot to make. Hearing a stall warning tone is not the same as seeing your AoA. (For that matter, rudder shakers or stick shakers are another place where a sense other than hearing is used to cue a pilot that he is stalled or nearly stalled ... )
Originally Posted by Garrison
Either the information provided by the BEA is inaccurate or there is a persistent misunderstanding on this thread about the attitude and flight path.
The BEA report says pitch is 16 degrees nose up, 35-40 degrees angle of attack, and 10,000 fpm down.
To get the flight path angle, you subtract the angle of attack from the positive pitch angle, giving around -20 to -25 degrees.
This is the flight path angle, and it is far from vertical.
The true airspeed is 10,000 fpm, or around 100 knots, divided by the sine of the angle, which gives around 250 knots.
The airplane was in a stalled, mushing descent, not a vertical plunge or falling-leaf type of maneuver. At least this is what the BEA numbers require.
Presuming AoA is measured in degrees, not units, I follow what you are saying. The velocity seems to have been enough to return to flying if the nose could have been aligned with the flight path angle (presuming enough elevator/THS authority is available to get the nose pitching down).
Is that part of the point you are making?