I truly cannot believe the bulls*hit I'm reading here.
Dani said,
BOAC, even if they had all instruments available, I hardly doubt that they could have recovered, considering that they were in a "deep stall" (we don't know if they were)
Yes we do know. This aircraft was NOT susceptible to a deep stall. A deep stall affects aircraft with a T-tail, with a horizontal stabilizer capable of being aerodynamically 'blanked off' by separated air from a stalled wing. That is, Sea Vixen, B727, HS Trident.
The modern Airbus and Boeing aircraft are NOT prone to deep stall.
A deep stall is a stall which is unrecoverable except with the deployment of a tail-chute. This stall was induced by the pilot pulling the nose up into and beyond 'coffin corner', and then wilfully holding it there as though wishing to commit suicide.
On 18th June 1972, G-ARPI entered a (real) deep stall departing LHR. I recall hearing that a pitch down of -60 degrees would have been required to recover the aircraft, but the horizontal stabilizer was blanked off and
didn't work! THAT is a deep stall.
This aircraft could have been recovered with an even half-qualified pilot at the controls.
I know, I know, it's hard to criticize departed colleagues, but any dispassionate observer must ask why this guy yanked the stick hard back when he experienced an ASI failure. Even if you're in a panic - a total funk, maxed-out (been there) - it is not logical or sensible.
But please, can we stop talking about 'deep stalls'?
This stall was
caused by the PF, and
maintained by the PF all the way down to MSL.