Originally Posted by
rudderrudderrat
Good to read you back again...
Thanks, RRR - thanks guys. Although I must confess that I thought we'd be talking about something different by now and that the hamster would be having a snooze until the final report appears.
I think the last paragraph may have to be changed.
With 20/20 hindsight, I'd agree - with the caveat that the airframe never reached an orientation sufficient to trigger ABNORMAL ATTITUDE law, and to the best of my knowledge, not many have, if any. I think that the FCTM was written referring to the kind of "jet upset" that tended to happen in the early days of jet airliners, whereas what happened here was an aircraft ever-so-slightly askew but basically stable being handed to the PF, who then proceeded to control it into a stall.