Dozy
Agree, for a full recovery, the pilots needed to put in some nose-down inputs, gain enough speed and then pull back into level flight. My point was that to say the aircraft was 'held' in the stall by the nose-up inputs (and resulting THS position) is false. If they would have reduced thrust the entire decent, we would have seen the nose going up and down continuously as airspeed rose and fell. With reduced thrust, the pitch angle never got over 0. In addition, the stall alarm may have functioned better as the airspeed in that case would have probably been over 60kts most of the time.
I have a feeling, if the nose would have been going up and down continuously, the stall alarm was going most of the time etc. that the pilots may have figured out they were stalled. Looks to me like they were convinced that with nose up, full thrust etc. that they couldn't possibly have been stalled especially with the way the stall alarm responded. Also, the decent rate with reduced thrust would not have been 10,000 ft. per minute giving the crew more time to resolve the problem.
Sorry to offend by posting my reply in the other thread but the constant misinformation especially about a 'deep' stall has gotten tiresome.