I had some argument via PM with some posters here about how much the nose would have to be lowered to break the stall at an AOA of 60° and posted some concern to the effectiveness of the THS. This reference states that it is not enough to lower the nose somewhat, and that it would lead to high sink rates and a difficult pullout if altitude would be sufficient. Posters calculated altitude loss to some 5.000 feet. Please, go back and read this reference from PJ2 and reconsider your calculation.
Retired F-4, as a fellow Phantom Pflyer, I think we both appreciate that it would likely take 10, 000 feet and more to recover AF447 from its deep stall. Until the AOA was reduced, it would not accelerate, and it would take a bit of time to run the trim down far enough to recover. If the recovery took more than 20,000 feet, it would be because the nose was left down too long after it began flying. Availability of airspeed in the recovery would be very beneficial (since there is no AOA gauge .)
PJ2, AF447 may have been a bit 'goosey' at altitude but to actually get and keep the nose well in the air as AF447 did implies more a lack of awareness (scan or instrument problem) than a control difficulty based on the limited information released. (There seems to be no indication of a dynamic departure from controlled flight for example.). There seems to have been adequate control authority to put the aircraft in a level attitude.
More like PF expecting the aircraft to take care of pitch attitude without the need to scan while attention is diverted elsewhere. Of course, this is just my personal opinion, and I await the BEA interim report to shed more light on what is presently poorly understood by those of us on the outside.