@ PJ2
"...At the MSA [Minimum Safe Altitude around the departure airport], and the aircraft is well away, either in the climb or in cruise and above FL100, one doesn't "wait" for a while to do the drill...one does not do the drill at all. One "levels off", and begins troubleshooting, which means get out the checklists for pitch and power to stabilize the airplane in cruise. There is not sufficient data to determine if this was done or not - we just have the back-stick and the climb*...." (italics added)
This statement links the back stick to the climb. On the face of it, that seems fair. Nothing of the sort is stated in the BEA release. It is suggested, and
inferred in the post above.
From the BEA release, the PF inputs left roll and NU. He then hears 'STALL', twice. I am suggesting that he released back stick, perhaps even let the stick migrate to neutral. BEA makes no statement pertinent to this action.
ND input is not eliminated in the report.
It is only later that BEA reports
"the a/c climbs progressively beyond ten degrees (NU), and *STARTS* to climb..." (emphasis mine)
It takes an assumption on the part of the reader to conclude the PF was the reason the a/c "continued" (or even 'began') to climb. What can be taken as fact, is
The aircraft may not have been responsive to his original input... It can only be considered so if one believes he maintained NU inputs..... NOT "......."an" input.
The sequence of events I take as fact, but the timing, and any intermittent activity, is not given, and for that reason, is speculation. REMEMBER that BEA reports "FROM 2:10:05". They could have assigned a time to each following event, but they chose not to. I am sure that is inadvertent.
If in roll direct, and subject to "twitchy ailerons" he may have tailored his "enthusiastic" input back a notch, and quickly switched to "several, minor" inputs to conform with his training to ALAW? Also, in Pitch, the cg was aft (per plan), something he would need quickly to conform his stick work to.
So, Roll Direct, aft cg, turbulence, (severe), STALL, STALL. Still, at eleven seconds after assuming control,
"...so, speeds are gone.." (PF)
Cool customer? +1
update... "...You asked if an unraveling altitude could "explain" the full back-stick..." ...PJ2
Let's be specific. The first NU was not "full back stick"
again... (PJ2)
"The fourty-five second period between disconnect and apogee requires concentrated, detailed examination. .."
"..By the time the stall had fully developed at the top of the descent (38,000) when the physical energy of the aircraft had largely dissipated and the AoA went from 16deg to >40deg as the descent began, there were no options remaining with the exception, possibly, if they had re-trimmed the THS set at 13NU, (the effects of which now verified by DJ77's observation & CONF iture's diagram)..."
I would suggest a more focused focus on the first fifteen seconds after a/p loss.
To muddy the field with a 'global picture' at this point is a disservice to the PF.
Without more explicit data, it is tempting to discuss that which the PF had perhaps no chance of recovering. In determining what caused the NU
(initial and secondary, only THEN tertiary), the "second guessing" has some validity. PF had perhaps ten seconds to suss this, (with his F/O), and the Captain came back almost assuredly after the game is lost. Actually, more like ELEVEN seconds.