Yes. And NO. In a powered system, especially one with a tagalong "Trimmer" (also described as a variable incidence wing set), it is a bit more complicated? "Stop the Roll". "Relax back stick".
Not quite as simple as "relax back stick." That leaves the "up" command in place. Worth reviewing the on line resource, A330-A340 Flight Crew Training Manual . pdf. (Dated, June 2005) regarding SS and high speed protection, if Alpha Prot isn't working. (Seems not to have been, else no stall, right?).
See pages 27 and page Page 34 of that .pdf.
Note: pull side stick up, release. Nose stays up, up you go. Push side stick forward, and then release, to change pitch
. If you don't, up you will keep going ...
IF the magnitude, in displacement and time, of your nose up command isn't equaled by the magnitude, in displacement and time of the nose down command, THEN your nose will stay more "up" than "level." (See the pictures).
I have been intrigued by the discussion about what happened deep into the event, when the AoA had gone high, plane was falling, and questions on control effectiveness in well developed stall arise. But we are not talking about that time, the concern at hand is
upset initiation.
I honestly don't think it's that complicated.
The complexity begins when one sorts through laws that rely on the AoA input, and Airspeed inputs, and being aware of which law is operating. Some of the laws do some work for you. Some hundreds of posts into this discussion, we have the pilot's own words to tell us which law state to examine: alternate law. Fewer things at work for you.
I'll await further input in re Abnormal Attitude law. Some parameters were met. But some information (leaks?) to date suggest that due to airspeed being erroneous, AA not in play. I hope that gets officially addressed.
Ab initio complaints from the CFI? Once rolling an A330, or Pitching it, with a "helper" as big as my house, the Physics is different? Not really, perhaps surprising is more accurate.
Zero-value-added prose.
IF PF's first NU was in some way additive to an existing rotation of some description, it explains a bit how the rotation could have been emphatic enough to elicit 7kfpm?
Based on what data point? Were there an already existing rate of climb in progress, do you not think the FDR would have that data, and the info be part of the summary?
If he held it enough (before the seat started to really push him up!)
Do you mean "if he had held nose down" enough? Seat push him up? What means this?
to allow that big slab to acquire the power to really move her tail, Bob is then someone's uncle........?
Zero value added, though droll.
As you slow down, the magnitude of force acting on your airfoil reduces as square of the velocity change. Does one get to a point of lost control effectiveness? Good question.
The BEA later mention "repeated ND inputs" by the Pilot, but have they attached these to an attempt to recover from the climb? BEA's bon mots need to be sorted by time on a linear graph, perhaps that is forthcoming.
One certainly hopes for more clarity in the next report.