Takata
But only one relevant at the time of AF447 is what I already posted above from Air France A330 2009 FCOM (Rev.24).
Is there also a FCTM from Air France available with the relevant paragraph like that one posted by myself?
Anyway, I don't understand how one may consider that PF actions at this second stall warning (which lasted 50+ seconds) could match any published stall procedure at all without completely twisting the facts. Neither TOGA nor sustained pull-up would be part of it.
Isnīt the new generation of pilots focused on procedures and SOPīs and a strict obedience of those procedures, whereas my generation was challenging those procedures and their application dependent on the relevant situation and based on their own experience (and improving those by doing so)?
And based on that statement (also it has a ? at the end) and the old stall recovery procedure (not stall procedure, you misnamed probably) the actions of AF447 reflects the application of this procedure to detail, without twisting any facts. We might not understand, why they continued the aplication of this non functioning procedure for so long, but again, see above.
It would be a better approach to question the implementation of the old procedure instead of twisting the application on behalf of the wrong outcome.