Bearfoil, is it a total blunder if you have a UAS condition to apply UAS procedures? Did he pull the stick before the stall warning or after? It appears to be "before" in the rude imprecise chronology of the released data.
And simply for my own information I have some related questions.
* If he should have waited to apply UAS procedures then how long should he have waited?
* What is the intended purpose of the UAS procedure. It seems to be to slow down the plane to get it into a safer margins condition between stall and overspeed, which was already happening.
* Might the pilot have asserted the "slow me down quickly" planning to lose maybe 50 knots by climbing 500' to 1000' and then level off only to have the stall warning derail his thought processes?
* Is everyone happy with the UAS scenario PJ2 suggests. It seems to partially fit to my untutored eyes. If it was not UAS, why was it not? If it was not UAS, then what the heck else might the pilot have been doing presuming he is rational with no deathwish? Too many here are willing to accept conflicting data in such a manner as to suggest the pilot simply messed up. I'm ornery. WHY might he have messed up? Absent a good reason I'm not willing to give the "pilot messed up" crowd an ear, including the French Transport Minister.
We need i dots and t crosses applied to the appropriate letters here.